Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Airstrips (Use)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what purposes the proposed new and reconstructed airfields in Sierra Leone will be used; and what will be the appropriate cost of their construction and reconstruction.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): These airstrips are intended for internal security requirements and for emergency landings, and in due course may be used for internal air services. No overall estimate of costs is yet available, but it is expected that the costs of reconstruction at Magburaka and at Bo will be £820 and £4,500. respectively.

Mr. Orbach: Would not the Colonial Secretary agree that it would be far better for the economic and social welfare of the Colony and Protectorate if more money were spent upon internal communications, roads and railways?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Internal security is of the first importance.

Agricultural Research and Training

Mr. Orbach: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities exist in Sierra Leone for agricultural research and training; and what is the number of Africans receiving agricultural training.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): There are four well-equipped research stations engaged in the study of rice, oil palm products, animal husbandry and horticulture, respectively, as well as two experimental farms. A four-year course in agriculture for 48 students is held at Njala Training College, and a further eight Sierra Leoneans are at present studying agriculture in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Orbach: Would not the Under-Secretary of State agree that, in a Colony where 90 per cent. of the economic sustenance is derived from agriculture, there ought to be greater facilities available for agricultural research and training? Is he doing everything possible to encourage this?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir, a great deal is being done. Since the end of the war, substantial C.D.W.F. grants to assist research have been made in this area.

Railways and Roads

Mr. Orbach: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of miles of railway tracks and surfaced roads in the Colony and Protectorate of Sierra Leone, respectively; and what plans have been made for increasing rail and road transport.

Mr. Profumo: The Sierra Leone Railway has 339 miles of track, of which 46 miles is in the Colony. Over £3½ million are being spent on improvements. There are 90 miles of tarred road in the Colony and 42 miles in the Protectorate. Under the current development programme a further 190 miles of Protectorate road will be tarred and twelve major bridges are being built.

Mr. Orbach: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him and his right hon. Friend if they will go ahead with roads and railways in Sierra Leone as rapidly as possible? They will be aware of the problem there. Roads and railways are worse there than in any other Colony or Protectorate the Commonwealth.

Rice Production

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been done to increase rice production in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Profumo: There has been a very substantial increase in acreage and production of rice since the war. Considerable areas of grassland are now being cultivated mechanically and mangrove swamps have been enclosed and cleared. Research is being done on the properties of the soil and on rice varieties. Improved seed is now being distributed and the sale of fertilisers is being subsidised.

Mr. Pannell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to take note of the fact that there has been a serious falling off in rice production owing to the counter-attraction of illicit diamond mining? Will he bear that fact in mind when trying to revitalise this industry?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Public Services (Local Recruitment)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will appoint a commission to examine and report on the opportunities for training and promotion in the public services of members of the indigenous races in British Colonies, Protectorates and Trusteeship Territories.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. It is already the policy and practice to fill recruitment vacancies in all Colonial Territories with local people whenever suitable and qualified candidates are available; and to increase the number of local qualified candidates by training programmes in the territories and in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that those of us who receive a considerable number of letters from Colonial Territories are getting a large number from very varied Colonies regarding the absence of opportunity for advancement in the Civil Service? In view of the fact that we want to prepare these people to take over their Governments, is it not desirable that priority should be given to this?

Mr. Profumo: More than 1,000 locally-domiciled officers were placed in training courses in the United Kingdom in 1956.

Mr. Bottomley: While I recognise that every encouragement is given and opportunity provided for full promotion within the territories concerned, would the Under-Secretary not agree that there would be an advantage in having something equivalent to the Civil Service Corn-mission that we have in this country?

Mr. Profumo: The time has not come to have an equivalent arrangement, but a great deal, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, is being done.

Cocoa Butter Substitutes

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has about the production of synthetic cocoa butter; and what effect this is likely to have on the cocoa industry in the Colonies.

Mr. Profumo: Other fats have been used in limited quantities as substitutes for cocoa butter for many years. It is not possible to forecast developments in this sphere, but I am told that there is no present evidence that they are likely to have a significant effect on the cocoa industry in the Colonies.

Mr. Pannell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether any organisation under his control has conducted an analytical test of this synthetic butter in order to ascertain its quality and whether it would prove a threat to the natural cocoa industry?

Mr. Profumo: No organisation of my Department has done so, but the commercial interests are constantly doing so.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that within the last few hours Soviet Russia has placed a large order in Ghana for cocoa, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that our trade relations are expanded so that this market may not be lost to this country?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that arises from the Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Radcliffe Report

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he intends to take, and when, to facilitate the discussion between the Government


and representative Cypriots, in either Cyprus or London, of Lord Radcliffe's draft of a self-governing constitution: and if he will include in such steps an invitation to Archbishop Makarios, an easing of emergency regulations, an offer to release detainees, and an offer of clemency to those now under arms in Cyprus against the British Government.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has now taken to open negotiations on the Radcliffe Report with representative Cypriots; and when he expects discussions to begin.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With regard to discussions with Cypriots, including Archbishop Makarios, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend and I said in the debate on 19th February. With regard to the steps suggested in the Question by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), the Governor has since 19th December eased certain emergency regulations and has released two groups of detainees. He is ready to take further steps in this direction as soon as circumstances allow.

Mr. Hughes: Whilst thanking the Minister for that constructive reply, may I ask, as he has had several recent successes in other Colonies to his credit, if he will not make a constructive effort on the lines suggested? Even if Archbishop Makarios is connected with violence, will the Minister not follow a precedent like that of Field Marshal Smuts, whose violence was forgotten, for the purpose of promoting confidence and peace?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for the tribute he paid to me, but such success as I have achieved has been on the basis of recognising the importance of preserving law and order.

Captain Pilkington: Has my right hon. Friend seen paragraphs in the American newspaper Time, which is notoriously hostile to this country, which repeat disgraceful accusations against the behaviour of the British in Cyprus? Will he see that our information services counter this sort of unscrupulous propaganda.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the Minister can be held responsible for what appears in an American magazine.

Orthodox Church (Land)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total area of land in Cyprus owned by the Orthodox Church; and how much of it is undeveloped.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Approximately 66,000 acres. I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not available.

United Nations Resolution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the United Nations Resolution urging negotiations for a settlement of the conflict in Cyprus and the favourable response given to it by Cypriot political and trade union organisations, and the declared intention of E.O.K.A. to cease acts of violence when negotiations with the Ethnarchy begin, he will invite Archbishop Makarios to London with the object of reaching agreement regarding the Radcliffe Constitution and the realisation of self-government and self-determination.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I said about Archbishop Makarios in the debate on 19th February is not, in the Government's view, affected by the wording of the United Nations Resolution.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a new opportunity of ending this tragedy in Cyprus has now arisen as a result of the United Nations Resolution and the response which has been made to it by political and trade union organisations in Cyprus? Is it not now clear that if negotiations began with Archbishop Makarios violence would immediately end in that island?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know of no possible authority to justify the hon. Member having used the phrase
…in view of the…declared intention of E.O.K.A. to cease acts of violence when negotiations with the Ethnarchy begin…
The hon. Gentleman has put that down in a Parliamentary Question, but I know of no possible justification for it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Secretary of State whether, at the present moment, following the United Nations discussion, he would indicate whether he proposes to take any fresh initiative in the near future?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We propose, as hitherto, to retain the initiative.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that I have put into a Question something for which I have no authority, may I say, Sir, that I shall forward to the right hon. Gentleman the authority on which I based the statement in my Question?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall be delighted to receive it.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Do we understand from the Secretary of State that the Government are going to do nothing in pursuance of the United Nations Resolution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be quite wrong to assume that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

African National Congress (Constitutional Proposals)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the demands of the African National Congress of Northern Rhodesia for constitutional changes; and what reply the Government have made to them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The African National Congress addressed a letter to me last November putting forward various proposals for constitutional changes which I had the opportunity of discussing with Mr. Nkumbula and others in the course of my recent visit to Northern Rhodesia. These proposals, together with the views of all other sections of the African and European communities, are now being considered by the Government of Northern Rhodesia who have begun the series of consultations with representatives of all groups in Northern Rhodesia to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 6th February.

Sir L. Plummer: Would the Colonial Secretary himself give attention to the points of view expressed by these people? He is aware, of course, that the African National Congress was opposed to the imposition of Central African Federation. In view of that attitude, if he wants it to work, is it not essential that he should bring his counsel and judgment to bear

on the very important questions put to him by the African people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly did so, and still continue to do so. I only hope the energies of these people will be concentrated on worth-while objectives and not on sterile controversy as to whether Federation was or was not a good thing.

Mr. J. Johnson: In spite of the fact that the Minister saw Mr. Harry Nkumbula—which we all welcome—is it not the fact that the Governor and his officials do not officially recognise the Northern Rhodesian African National Congress? Is not this obscurantist and mediaeval, because this Congress is the only movement which almost universally stands for all political movements and is recognised as such by all Europeans except the Governor and his secretariat?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I saw Mr. Nkumbula with the full agreement of the Governor. The African National Congress does not represent all Africans in the Territory. It has an important point of view, and I was very glad to meet its leader.

Urban African Housing Ordinance

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which municipalities and townships of Northern Rhodesia the Urban African Housing Ordinance providing for demarcation of African housing areas is in operation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Urban African Housing Ordinance is in operation in the municipalities of Broken Hill, Chingola, Kitwe, Livingstone, Luanshya, Lusaka, Mufulira, and Ndola and in the townships of Bancroft, Choma, Fort Jameson, Kalomo, Mazabuka, Monze and Pemba.

Sir L. Plummer: The Colonial Secretary will be aware that all sides of the House have noted with pleasure the action he has taken against the colour bar—his personal action showing displeasure of the colour bar. As this is an extension of the policy of apartheid into the British Commonwealth, will not the right hon. Gentleman now express his displeasure at suggestions that we should segregate Africans from Europeans in the form now being suggested?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry to reply in what might seem ungenerous, but strictly accurate, terms. The purpose of the Ordinance is not to perpetuate the colour bar. The intention of the legislation is not to set aside special racial areas, but to impose on local authorities special obligations to the African population.

Sir L. Plummer: Is not that the attitude of the South African Prime Minister on apartheid?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister cannot answer for the South African Parliament.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would be grateful, Sir, if I could say that Africans are not restricted to living in African housing areas.

Housing, Mufulira

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what scheme has been approved by the municipality of Mufulira, Northern Rhodesia, to provide 500 served sites for housing additional personnel of the Mufulira Copper Mines Limited; and if the housing sites provided will be available to Africans and Europeans.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Mufulira Municipal Board has agreed to make available to the Mining Company 500 serviced sites in the Government township for the erection of houses for additional members of the European staff. As explained in my reply to the right hon. Member on 19th December, the Mining Company itself makes all necessary provision for housing its African employees.

Mr. Paling: If this municipality finds it necessary and desirable to provide houses for Europeans, would it not be a good thing if it found the time and money to provide houses for Africans, too, and would not that be likely to lead to better relations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I went into this when I was in Northern Rhodesia. This is an imaginative attempt to link the destinies of the people of the mining areas with the life of the community as a whole, and it needs every encouragement in the interests of all races. There is nothing to stop an African from living in the township if he is prepared to abandon

the obvious advantages, from his point of view, of living in houses provided by the mining company.

Boards (African Representatives)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why there is only one African representative on the African Housing Board; and why there are no African representatives on the Factories Ordinance Board or Police Advisory Board in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Profumo: Appointments to these boards are made according to qualifications, regardless of race.

Mrs. Butler: Is it not true that there are many Africans with the necessary qualifications who lack only the experience which they could gain if they were asked to serve on these bodies? Is it not part of the Secretary of State's responsibility to see that Africans are given this experience so that they can make their contribution on these bodies on behalf of the African population?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the Governor will do what he considers is most suitable in all these various circumstances.

Copperbelt (Restriction Orders)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number and names of Africans in Northern Rhodesia who are excluded from the Copperbelt under restriction orders; how many of these are members of the African Mineworkers' Union; how many other than miners are members of the African National Congress; what provision has been made for their wives and families; how many have been given the opportunity to present their cases to a High Court judge; and how many have been legally represented.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Sixty-one Africans are at present excluded from the Copper-belt. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL. REPORT a list of their names with details of membership of the African Mineworkers' Trade Union and the African National Congress. Those restricted have open to them the normal means of livelihood in the respective areas, and District Commissioners have been authorised to pay subsistence allowances in cases of proved hardship. All have been given


the opportunity to present their cases to a High Court judge and the hearing of the cases is now in progress. No one has so far availed himself of his right to be legally represented.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this large number of 63 persons who have been deported from the Copperbelt a number of them are not even members of the Mine Workers' Union which was engaged in this strike? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that some of them are quite respected members of the African National Congress? Will he not take steps to end these conditions which were applied during an emergency which has now ceased?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not. The emergency arose because of the imaginative effort being made to lead to African advancement, and, in my capacity as a trustee in this matter, like the Government of Northern Rhodesia, I have no intention of allowing this progressive and liberal movement of African advancement to be jeopardised.

Following are the names:


AFRICANS RESTRICTED FROM THE COPPER BELT


Name
Whether known to be a member of African Mine-workers' Trade Union
Whether known to be a member of the African National Congress


Mathew Mwendapole
Yes
—


Jameson Mulenga Chapoloka
Yes
—


Daniel Mwamba Nsabashi
Yes
—


Albert Malitonga
Yes
—


Mathew de Luxe Nkoloma
Yes
—


Edward Mungoni Liso
—
Yes


Harold Phiri
Yes
—


Mathew Mugala
Yes
—


Harry Mwalya Chiyungi
Yes
—


Alphonso Bwalya
Yes
—


Warren Munthali
Yes
—


Clement Chilembo
Yes
—


Leonard Chewe
Yes
—


Harry Kapaya
Yes
—


Antonio Chopolani
Yes
—


Edward Feste Mukuka (Nkoloso)
—
Yes


Andrew Mwenya
—
Yes


Emmanuel Chalabesa
—
Yes


Nalumbwete Telemuna
—
Yes

Name
Whether known to be a member of African Mine-workers' Trade Union
Whether known to be a member of the African National Congress


Valentino Chela Mulenga
—
Yes


Mathew Chibuye
—
Yes


Lameck Chisanga
—
Yes


Michael George Charlie Mweshi
—
Yes


Douglas Mwansa
—
Yes


Lomi Mutale
—
Yes


Eliko Mwamba
—
Yes


Andrew Mutemba
—
Yes


Robert Simon Mlota
Yes
—


Alfred Harrington Kalumbi
Yes
—


Jameson Reidson Namitengo
Yes
—


Stephen Parton Kamanga
Yes
—


John Stebbing Phiri
Yes
—


Sylvester Nkoma
Yes
—


Amyoke Mwale (Amucki)
Yes
—


Patrick Nyirenda
Yes
—


Daniel Bwalya
Yes
Yes


James Latham Sinyangwe
Yes
—


Duncan Chandwe
Yes
Yes


Herbert Bweupe
Yes
Yes


Simon Sinkamba
Yes
—


Chandwe Musonda
Yes
—


Misheck Jonas Mumba
Yes
—


Christopher Katongo
Yes
—


Michael Katongo
Yes
—


Zachariah Phiri
Yes
Yes


Lex Lesa (Lucius Lex)
Yes
—


Jackson Koya
Yes
—


Herodotus Nsungwe
Yes
Yes


Rodwell Sichela
Yes
—


Bernard Shula
Yes
—


Gordon Chindele
Yes
—


Alphonso Kalima
Yes
—


John Akim Banda
Yes
—


Peter Chapa
Yes
—


Jonas Ponde
Yes
Yes


Sondashi Chibuye
Yes
—


Wadi Muhango
Yes
—


Latham Mulela
Yes
Yes


Chisimba Mpandamali
Yes
Yes


Francis Mukupa
Yes
—


Dickie Kapakoso Ngulube
Yes
Yes

Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme (Displaced Africans)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans it is proposed to move from their homes in the Cwembe Valley in Northern Rhodesia during 1957–58 in connection with the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme; what will be the cost of the operation; and what provision is being made to pay compensation to, and


ensure alternative accommodation for, the Africans thereby displaced.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have asked the Governor for this detailed information and will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have it.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the Secretary of State for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that there is still a great deal of anxiety and fear among these people about their being pushed around? Would he, therefore, when he receives the plan made for their resettlement and compensation, be willing to publish it in a report to the House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly. I went in detail into resettlement when I went there lately.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Africans who have been moved to make room for the Kariba scheme are living in better houses and under better conditions than before they were moved?

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is fully satisfied that these alternative sites are suitable to the Africans, and, further, whether the transfers which are taking place and have taken place have received the full co-operation of the displaced Africans?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The alternative sites are, of course, of varying quality, and I am very conscious of the need to see that Africans are displaced to adequate alternative accommodation. I had talks with some of those mostly concerned when I was there, and I have made personal undertakings to them, as far as I constitutionally can, to watch what happens with the greatest care.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Resident Labour Contracts

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied that the conditions of the squatters' contract labour in Kenya are consistent with the International Labour Organisation Convention on slavery; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Profumo: rose—

Mr. Benn: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. This Question should refer to

the "United Nations" Convention on Slavery.

Mr. Profumo: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, which Her Majesty's Government signed on 7th September, 1956. I am advised the form of contract as prescribed in Kenya by the Resident Labourers Ordinance would not contravene the Convention.

Mr. Benn: Could the Minister give the House an assurance that the conditions which at one time did prevail requiring children of sixteen to work for the farmer and also dealing with the pass laws are not a contravention of the provisions of this Convention?

Mr. Profumo: I have taken everything into consideration in giving the Answer I have given to the hon. Member.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Minister give serious attention to the whole problem of squatter labour and contract labour in the European Highlands with a view to introducing a system of free labour based on the native villages so that the workpeople can go out to work on the farms rather than the present system in which sometimes penal sanctions operate?

Mr. Profumo: I should point out that the contracts are freely entered into by the employees, but certainly what the right lion. Member has suggested will be our long-term aim.

Mr. Armstrong: Is my hon. Friend aware that these resident labour contracts have always been eagerly sought after by Africans working on farms in Kenya and that Kikuyu now returning to farms are disappointed that it is difficult or impossible to get such contracts? Is he aware that to suggest that they have any affinity with slavery is the greatest travesty of the facts?

Mr. Profumo: Yes. Sir, I think that would he very true.

Political Meetings (Loyalty Certificates)

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why attendance by Africans at political meetings in Kenya is restricted to those with loyalty certificates; who issues those certificates; and


how many have been issued, and how many refused to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Loyalty certificates, which are issued by District Commissioners, are only required for Kikuyu, Embu and Meru attending political meetings in the Central Province. Elsewhere, including Nairobi, there is no restriction on attendance. The restriction in the Central Province is necessary for security reasons. To date 56,950 certificates have been issued. The number refused is known only in Nairobi, where 75 certificates have been refused as against 820 granted.

Mr. Benn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that the way to maintain peace in Kenya is to provide a political alternative to violence? Does he not think that, at any rate in the long run, the practice of using the loyalty certificate will make it increasingly difficult for this transformation to take place?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I wish the hon. Member would sometimes look at this policy from the angle of those whose loyalty deserves some recognition. I think we ought also to recognise what a remarkable return to normal conditions in certain fields has already been achieved.

African Industrial Estates Development Committee

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the functions of the African Industrial Estates Development Committee recently set up in Kenya; and whether the members of that committee will comprise both Africans and Europeans.

Mr. Profumo: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 6th March to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).

Mr. Baldwin: Does my hon. Friend not think that the Kenya Government are to be congratulated on the steps they have taken in setting up this and similar Committees, which must lead to a raising of the standard of living of the Africans and which, to a certain extent, will break down the innuendoes very often made in this House about Europeans not wanting to raise the status of the Africans?

Mr. Profumo: I certainly do. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's remarks will have been noted in the spirit in which they have been made.

Arrested Persons

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans in Kenya have been arrested since the latest revision of the emergency powers; and for what offences.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From the 8th January to 7th March, 8,989 Africans were arrested for offences connected with the emergency—most of them for unlawful travel and breaking curfew. Since the second part of the Answer is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not incredible, now that the emergency is over and Dedan Kenyatta has been disposed of, that Africans should be arrested at this rate, 8,000 in a few weeks, for emergency offences? Does not this show that most of these offences have nothing to do with security at all and that many of these cases are of Africans wanting to go into Nairobi to find work or to see their families? How can we prevent a recurrence of the emergency unless we show more humanity and abolish these offences altogether?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I recognise that the numbers are very large, but I think they also represent the degree of normality which is returning [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—perhaps hon. Members would listen—in that large numbers of Africans now believe that the emergency is virtually over. As a result of this, they tend to want to flock back again to Nairobi. It is most important that nothing should arise in Nairobi in the foreseeable future which is likely to lead to another "Operation Anvil". These restriction orders are neessary, but I recognise that, particularly in the Kiambu district, where there is overcrowding, steps must be taken to provide employment—there and elsewhere—which will tend to make people less anxious to enter Nairobi. These arrests do not mean, of course, that these people were necessarily convicted. The punishments vary from a return home to fines and things of that kind. I will circulate further information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dugdale: Is it not a fact that persons who are arrested and detained for any cause whatever, even if afterwards they are released, are deprived of the right of either going to meetings or of voting? Will these people be added to the list?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think it follows by any means that arrest under this Ordinance would lead to the withdrawal of a loyalty certificate, but I will let the right hon. Gentleman know the definite answer on that point.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these laws governing restrictions on travel are being too harshly applied? Does he not further agree that it is essential for Africans to be able to travel to Nairobi to seek work

ARRESTS OF AFRICANS FOR OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH THE EMERGENCY FROM 8TH JANUARY TO 7TH MARCH


Regulations involved
Type of offence
Number arrested


Emergency Regulations, 1952:




Regulation 2
Contravention of restriction orders
81


Regulation 4E
Contravention of special orders affecting Nairobi
79


Regulation 8A
Illegal possession of firearms
2


Regulation 8FA
Acting as a terrorist
13


Regulation 16A (and allied provisions)
Unlawful travel
3,771


Regulation 16B (and allied provisions)
Failure to carry identity card
905


Regulation 22A
Being in a prohibited area
24


Police Ordinance, 1948, as amended by Emergency Regulations
Breaking curfew
2,118


Emergency (Kikuyu, Embu and Meru Passbooks) Regulations, 1954
Passbook offences
1,775


Emergency (Communal Services) Regulations, 1953
Breach of communal services order
210


Emergency (Control of Crops, Food and Dwellings) Regulations, 1953
Breach of order made
2


Emergency (Control of Antibiotics and Sulpha Drugs) Regulations, 1953
Unauthorised possession or supply of scheduled drugs
9



TOTAL
8,989

Mageta Island Detention Camp

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the frequent complaints of ill treatment of detainees at Mageta Island Detention Camp in Kenya, of which particulars have been sent to him, he will take steps to close this camp.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is already intended to close Mageta Island Detention Camp within the next six months, but not for the reasons suggested by the hon. Member.
and not merely to go there when they have already got jobs? Will he not use his influence to see that these laws, if not repealed, are at least much less stringently applied?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am extremely anxious, as I am sure is the whole House, that the improved conditions in Kenya should not be jeopardised by over-hasty relaxation of certain restrictions, but I know that the Governor and the Ministers in Kenya of the multi-racial Government are equally anxious to have a return to normal conditions as soon as possible.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the information:

Mrs. Castle: While welcoming the first part of the Minister's answer, may I ask whether he is not greatly concerned by the contents of the letter which I sent him showing how Mageta Island Camp has been administered? Can he tell us what is to happen to these people, who have clearly suffered serious ill-treatment? What is to be their future? Where are they to be trained, rehabilitated and released?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady said that her letter was disturbing. Of course,


the circumstances in Kenya have been very disturbing. I think that one of the troubles on Mageta Island has been that too many detainees believed they were there for ever. I have been extremely anxious, as have the Government of Kenya, to make it clear that in our view nobody is beyond possible rehabilitation. These people will go to Athi Camp. They will be sent there and put in the rehabilitation stream. If they respond, they will then be moved to the rehabilitation and works camps in their own districts with a view to eventual release. If they persist in their refusal they will go to Manyani.

St. Julian's Community Rest Centre, Limuru

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached by the Highlands Board and the Land Control Board of Kenya regarding the proposal of St. Julian's (Church of England) Community to establish a multi-racial rest centre at Limuru.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Neither the Highlands Board nor the Land Control Board has yet tendered advice on this proposal to the Governor.

Mr. Robinson: Would not the Secretary of State agree that the noisy opposition coming from a reactionary minority to this very modest project is really making things very difficult for the more moderate elements who genuinely want to see a multi-racial society in Kenya, and will he use his influence on the side of moderation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that to discuss this may well prejudice it. I made it perfectly clear that I gave my support to a branch of the St. Julian's Community in Kenya.

Security in Old Age (Report)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the committee appointed in 1954 by the Kenya Government to study the problem of security in old age will be published.

Mr. Profumo: The Kenya Government are considering this Report with that of the Rural Wages Committee which has

recently become available. I am not in a position to say when the Report will he published.

Mr. Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman at least encourage the Government of Kenya to publish this Report and not to sit on it indefinitely, because it is very important that we should know what is involved in providing security in old age for Africans, which is becoming a very urgent problem indeed, particularly for those in urban employment?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would really wish me to suggest that anything has been sat on. I am quite certain that his recent experience will bear that out. But I do assure him that there will be no lack of speed in trying to conic to a conclusion on this subject: but, as he knows, it does require very considerable study.

African General Service Medal

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why members of the Community Development and Rehabilitation Department employed in detention camps in Kenya have not been made eligible to receive the African General Service Medal.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As stated in paragraph 1 of Cmd. 9378, the award is designed primarily for recognition of service in operations against the Mau Mau in specified areas in Kenya during the period of the emergency, with special regard to hardships and dangers which accompanied duty there. Although the staff of the Community Development and Rehabilitation Department were involved in additional duties, this was no less true of many other departments, none of whose members qualify for the medals.

Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether ordinary members of the prison staff are eligible for it? If so, are not members of the Community Development and Rehabilitation Department just as much in danger and, therefore, just as much entitled to this medal?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand the feelings of my hon. Friend, but in the view of the Government the members of the prison staff were subjected to the same sort of dangers as were the Armed Forces. That is why the distinction was made.

Rural Wages (Report)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Committee on Rural Wages in Kenya will be published.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Report is expected to be published in Kenya in the near future.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman place a copy of the Report in the Library so that Members on both sides of the House may see that wages in the rural parts of Kenya are amongst the lowest in the world and vary from 2s. to 3s. a day?

Mr. Profumo: I will certainly undertake to put a copy in the Library, but I would not like to anticipate what the Report says.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Federation

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given to the request of the Southern Province Provincial Council in Nyasaland that Nyasaland be withdrawn from the Federation and that there should be an African majority both on the Executive and Legislative Councils.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the statements made to me by certain members of the Southern Province African Provincial Council during my visit to Nyasaland in January. I replied that in Her Majesty's Government's view Federation—which was certainly not the same thing as amalgamation—was in the best interests of the people of Nyasaland and had come to stay. I added that the economic advancement brought by Federation would help and not hinder the political advancement of Nyasaland.
I referred to the statement on the new constitutional arrangements for Nyasaland which I gave in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) on 15th June, 1955, and drew attention to the words of the Chief Secretary to the Nyasaland Government, used in Legislative Council in July, 1956, when he advised Africans to gain experience in parliamentary government before pressing for more constitutional advances.

Sir L. Plummer: Yes. Sir, but the Africans concerned with this believe that they will have an opportunity in 1960 to express their views towards the continuance of Federation. In the light of this, is it not a good thing not to be negative to their points of view and for the right hon. Gentleman to try to treat them as sympathetically as he can?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that was the conclusion which most of them reached when I visited them last month.

Mr. Wade: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these requests for withdrawal from the Federation will continue and, I fear, become more persistent unless there is greater confidence in the prospect of increased African representation on the Executive and Legislative Councils?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly think that is one important facet of the matter.

African Congress

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Nyasaland Government have withdrawn recognition from the Nyasaland African Congress at representing African associations.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Government of Nyasaland now refuse to recognise the Nyasaland African Congress.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Nyasaland Government have withdrawn recognition of the Nyasaland African Congress in the terms in which such recognition was originally accorded in December, 1944, namely, recognition of Congress as representing the various African associations in Nyasaland. Congress will not, however, cease to be recognised for what it is that is, a political party.

Mr. Swingler: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this step has been taken? Who is now recognised as representing the African association in the Colony, or is it proposed to recognise several associations as such and, if so, what is to be the machinery for negotiation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I am quite satisfied that, having been there myself and having seen that when the last figures were taken the nominal membership of the Congress was approximately


only one thousand, to claim that this body represented all Africans was absurd, and with my full approval this change has been made.

Mr. Johnson: Despite his figures, will not the right hon. Gentleman confirm the fact that this is the one Colony in the Commonwealth where an African political congress has had the full support for ten years of the traditional chiefs and elders of the enlightened people? Is not that the fact? Secondly, is it not the fact that when he was there he had a stormy meeting with the African National Congress led by Mr. Wellington Chirwa?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not, and if the hon. Gentleman thought that a stormy meeting his experience of English elections must be very limited.

Mr. Johnson: Forgetting the usual flippancy of the Minister, can he give me a factual answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I thought there was an answer, but whether or not it was a satisfactory one I cannot undertake to say.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUST TERRITORIES

Administration

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what suggestions for improving the administration of the Trust Territories under United Kingdom adminstraton have emanated from the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations; and which suggestions he has adopted.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The reports of the Council to the General Assembly each year contain some fifty recommendations relating to the Trust Territories of Cameroons and Tanganyika under United Kingdom administration; and action taken in the light of these recommendations is described in the Annual Reports on these territories submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations. Copies of these documents are available in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Mining Industry

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the minimum average wages for

European and Asian unskilled and skilled workers in the mining industry in Tanganyika; and what provision is made for the training and advancement of Africans in the industry.

Mr. Profumo: No minimum wage rates are laid down by law for the mining industry and no statistics are available showing rates for European or Asian workers. The high turn-over of African workers impedes lengthy training schemes, but one gold mine operates successfully a scheme for training experienced miners as charge-hands.

Mr. Paling: Are not the wages of the Africans very low compared with the wages paid to both Asians and Europeans? Does not this lead to much dissatisfaction? In any event, will the Minister see that Africans are given every opportunity of becoming skilled and trained workers?

Mr. Profumo: Yes. Sir. Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Gas Resources, Akata (Development)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the gas discovered at Akata in Eastern Nigeria will now be used for generating electricity to supply Aba and Port Harcourt; and to what extent the Government of Nigeria will participate in the exploitation and distribution of the gas.

Mr. Profumo: These matters are being considered by the Federal Government, but no decisions have yet been made.

Mr. Irving: Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that this development would be highly advantageous for the future of this Colony but that it is equally important that in any developments which take place the people and the Government should be associated in the exploitation of these resources? Will he do all that is in his power to see that that takes place?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think the stage has yet been reached for what the hon. Member has in mind, but I can assure him that all haste is being made in this important development.

Trade Unions (Public Meetings)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if trade unions are now permitted to hold public meetings in Lagos, Nigeria, without licence.

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir.

Banking System

Mr. Pargiter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have been made by the Government of the Eastern Region of Nigeria for the nationalisation of the banking system and its co-ordination.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir. Banks and banking are, in any case, matters falling within the competence of the Federal and not of any Regional legislature.

Mr. Pargiter: Does that mean that the Minister has no interest in this matter, particularly in view of a recent inquiry which has been made into this very important question throughout Nigeria?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, I have just as much responsibility for the Federal as for the Regional Government.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is not the 'Minister aware that in the Eastern Region now there is an indigenous bank under the control of the Government Corporation, which is running smoothly, and at a profit, and with constantly increasing efficiency?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Well, Sir, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House on 20th February, the possibility of all the capital of the African Continental Bank being acquired by the Eastern Regional Government is being examined, but there are many problems of law and policy which have yet to be settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN CAMEROONS

Estate and Agency Co. Ltd.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what concession has been made in the Southern Cameroons to the Estate and Agency Company Limited which is establishing a 4,000-acre tea estate at Ndu, north of Bamenda.

Mr. Profumo: The Southern Cameroons Government propose to grant the Company a 99-year right of occupancy over about 3,900 acres. The terms of the grant are still under negotiation, but the Company has been given permission to enter the land, and planting began in January.

Mr. Irving: Is it not highly unfortunate that in a development of this kind the co-operative movement has been overlooked, because it is the type of development which will give benefits to the people and help to develop them towards independence? Can the right hon. Gentleman not look further into this matter when future concessions are given?

Mr. Profumo: I will certainly undertake to look into this, but I certainly think that these arrangements are the best in the circumstances.

Mr. Tilney: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that what we want, and what the Cameroons want, is capital from outside to help the indigenous people?

Mr. Profumo: I think that that is perfectly true.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN COLONY AND PROTECTORATE

Wages, Unions and Staffs

Mr. Pargiter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the minimum average wages in the Aden Colony and Protectorate, the number and membership of trades unions, and the extent to which the indigenous members of the population are employed in administration and receive training for skilled work.

Mr. Profumo: The estimated minimum average wages in Aden Colony are 350s. a month for clerical workers, 14s. a day for tradesmen, 7 shillings 50 cents. a day for semi-skilled workers and 5 shillings 20 cents. a day for unskilled workers. Wages in the Protectorate vary, but are in general appreciably lower.
There are 24 registered trade unions in Aden Colony claiming a total membership of about 12,000. There is no trade union organisation in the Protectorate.
Of the senior staff in Aden Government Service about 11 per cent. are local officers, though this proportion is progressively increasing, and is expected to


increase further as a result of the work of the Adenisation Commission which it has recently been decided to appoint.
The large majority of permanent junior Government staff is indigenous and includes many skilled workers. Training in skilled work is available at the Aden Government Technical College.

Mr. Pargiter: Having regard to the urgency of events, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that we are proceeding fast enough in the encouragement of the indigenous workers and so on to better standards, because the obvious alternative will be for our introduction there of some form of self-government at an early date?

Mr. Profumo: I think so, Sir.

Mr. Osborne: Would not my hon. Friend agree that these extremely low wages, down to 5s. a day, suggest that if the workers of the world were to unite the British workers would lose the golden chains of privilege?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

Justices of the Peace

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that in addition to the appointment of policemen as J.P.s in Jamaica, ex-police officers are regularly appointed as J.P.s immediately on retirement from the police force; to what extent this is done with his approval; and if he will take steps to end such a system of appointments.

Mr. Profumo: I know that some retired police officers have been appointed as J.P.s in Jamaica, but on grounds of personal suitability and not of their previous office. The appointments are entirely within the Governor's discretion and do not require my right hon. Friend's approval. My right hon. Friend can see no grounds for intervention.

Mr. Allaun: Since law and order is a reserved subject under the Minister's control, will he cause amending legislation to be introduced in Jamaica forthwith?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. I can see no reason for doing so.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress he

has made towards ending the system of commissioning policemen as justices of the peace in Jamaica.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add at present to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 23rd January. I understand, however, that the Government of Jamaica hope to reach a decision shortly, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as they have done so.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the Minister think it highly improper that justices should adjudicate in cases presented by their colleagues or subordinates? Has he not some power in this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is always interesting to see those Members most anxious for self-government trying to get the Secretary of State to interfere in a field which is a matter entirely for the local inhabitants.

Mr. Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the police force in Jamaica is a very fine body of men and commands the confidence of the whole island?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA

Groundnuts (Prices)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the producer price for groundnuts in Gambia this season as compared with last.

Mr. Profumo: £31 a ton this season compared with £25 10s. last year.

Mr. Pannell: Can my hon. Friend say whether the price paid to the producer has involved a loss to the Price Stabilisation Fund?

Mr. Profumo: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

Ships (Nuclear Propulsion)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he is aware that the United States submarine "Nautilus" has been for some time actuated by nuclear energy; and what


steps he is taking to apply nuclear energy as a motive power in British ships, submarine and otherwise.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Test (Mr. J. Howard) on 23rd January on the application of nuclear power to ship propulsion generally. A prototype reactor and associated machinery for submarine propulsion have been ordered by the Admiralty from a group of industrial firms and work on this project is proceeding under the control of the Admiralty in collaboration with the Atomic Energy Authority.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty announced on 5th March that a Committee is to be set up under the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to bring together all the interests concerned with the problem of the application of nuclear propulsion for marine use.

Mr. Hughes: is the Minister yet in a position to say what advances have been made towards the application of nuclear energy to smaller surface vessels such as trawlers and drifters?

Mr. Maudling: This is still a very early stage in the development of marine propulsion by atomic means. It is too early to give any report on what progress has been made.

Mr. Bottomley: While recognising what has been done in this sphere of activity, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that the Government should be more energetic in pushing ahead with atomic-powered ships, bearing in mind that we are, after all. a maritime nation?

Mr. Maudling: The Government and the industry have been very energetic in proceeding with the development of all the uses of atomic energy.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not more important now than ever before to press on with the development of nuclear power and to make the oil companies realise that they are not the masters now?

Mr. Maudling: So far as that is accurate, it is reflected in the Government's policy.

Fire and Accident Precautions

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what protection is made available to the British public against the danger of radiation resulting from accidental or malicious explosion at Harwell or any other radiation or nuclear station in Great Britain.

Mr. Maudling: There is no possibility of an explosion resembling that of an atomic weapon occurring as a result of accident or malicious damage to plant or laboratory equipment in any atomic energy establishment. In all instances where substantial quantities of radioactive materials are handled, very great care is taken to prevent any significant release of radioactivity as a result of fire or accident of any kind.

Mr. Hughes: While the Minister states that care is taken, may I ask whether he is aware that recently students at Manchester University demonstrated without damage how inadequate the present protective measures are? Will he offer the thanks of the Government to those students for their great public service in so doing?

Mr. Maudling: The Calder Hall "B" station, which I believe is the one concerned, has not yet reached the stage when any radioactive material is present at all.

Euratom

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, on what terms, and in respect of what plants or activities, this country is going to give advice and help to Euratom.

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government as regards British association with Euratom.

Mr. Maudling: Her Majesty's Government favour co-operation in atomic energy matters between the United Kingdom and Western Europe, including the countries who are forming Euratom. The United Kingdom and the Euratom countries have, with other Western European countries, been working out practical measures for some time in the


Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority recently held technical discussion with representatives of the Euratom countries on the part which gas-cooled reactors, of the type ordered by the national electricity undertakings for installation in the United Kingdom, might play in the proposed Euratom nuclear power programme and, as announced in a joint communiqué on 1st March, have offered to facilitate contacts between United Kingdom and European firms and to assist in training scientists and engineers from the countries concerned. United Kingdom experts will continue their examination of the proposed Euratom power programme.

Sir J. Hutchison: While welcoming the aid which this country is giving to Euratom in the matter of training and advice, which will pay considerable dividends in the long run, will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of this country joining Euratom as a full member, but limited to the activities for which this country is already prepared to co-operate with O.E.E.C.—a membership of Euratom which would be greatly welcomed by the nations of the continent?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that the Euratom Treaty has not yet been signed. In the meantime, both the United Kingdom Government and the Euratom countries are members of the O.E.E.C. body which is working on this. This is getting ahead very well, and I think we should concentrate all our activities on it.

Mr. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that his statement does not mean that the Government's attitude towards the Euratom Treaty, as and when it is published, will be limited to consultation through O.E.E.C.; and, secondly, can he tell us what steps are being taken by the Government in pursuance of the assurance given by the Prime Minister to the House the other day that, as soon as possible after the Euratom Treaty has been published, an English version will be made available to hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Maudling: I think both these questions will have to wait for answers until the Euratom Treaty has been signed. Nothing that I have said really limits

what may develop when the Treaty is signed, and we see what shape it takes.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is a very strong case on technological grounds alone for the United Kingdom to be associated with Euratom in a far more advanced position than we are associated with the European Coal and Steel Community?

Mr. Maudling: If it comes to a question of discussing any form of association with Euratom, certainly those considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify the attitude of the Government to Euratom a little further? Are we to understand that the Government have definitely made up their minds not to join Euratom? If that is not the case, when are we to expect a statement from the Government, for surely they know what the contents of the Euratom Treaty are? Are they still making up their minds, and when shall we get the outcome of their deliberations?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think we can give the answers until Euratom has been formed and some association by this country with it has been proposed by it.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not a question of some association with it. I was asking if it was definitely the view of the Government that we should not join Euratom. May we have an answer to that? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great importance for our export trade of this whole position, either of membership of or association with Euratom?

Mr. Maudling: My answer is that we are working at the present moment very hard in O.E.E.C., which we think is the practical means of working on this problem at present. When Euratom has been formed, we shall know more about it and be able to state more clearly what our attitude will be towards it.

Nuclear Explosions (Radiation Hazards)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will publish the latest advice he has received regarding the hazards of radiation from nuclear explosions.

Mr. Maudling: I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun).

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Paymaster-General bear in mind that there have been a number of authoritative statements indicating the nuclear hazards are very considerably under-estimated in certain quarters, and, in view of the grave importance of the subject to mankind, would not the Paymaster-General arrange for all relevant advice received by him to be published so that it can be studied?

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend said yesterday that, since publication of the Report of the Medical Research Council, no reliable evidence has come to light which does other than confirm the conclusions contained in it, but if such evidence should come to hand the Government will ensure that it is published.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Has the Paymaster-General seen the evidence contained in the last six-monthly Report of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which shows that earlier estimates of radiation hazards have been greatly less than must now be allowed for?

Mr. Maudling: In this matter, of course, the Government rely on the advice of the Medical Research Council, which is the most authoritative, body for advice that we have.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Medical Research Council reported last June, and that, since then, there has been a report from the Conference of Human Geneticists? Would he tell us what is his view on that report?

Mr. Maudling: I have repeated the words of the Prime Minister, who said that since the publication of the Report last June no reliable evidence has come to light other than confirming the conclusions come to in that Report.

United Kingdom and United States (Exchange of Information)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will arrange for the fullest exchange of technical information between this country and the

United States of America with regard to the Calder Hall atomic power station and the American power station at Shipping-port, respectively.

Mr. Maudling: The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has already offered to give the United States Atomic Energy Commission detailed information on the Calder Hall power station in exchange for similar information on the power station under construction at Shippingport. The United States Atomic Energy Commission is considering this offer.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is there any legislative ban by the American Senate on this proposal? Can they do it under their existing laws?

Mr. Maudling: This is provided for within the framework of the Anglo-American Agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Trade Unions (Development)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance is given to encourage and develop the trade union movement in Hong Kong.

Mr. Profumo: Two officers of the Labour Department are wholly occupied on trade union matters, and guidance on the day-to-day problems of organisation and management is always available. Educational courses for trade union officials are arranged by the Labour Department from time to time, and trade unionism is included in the syllabus of civics courses run by the Education Department.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the Minister aware that nothing effective is really being done in forming a sound trade union movement in Hong Kong, and, because of that, the wage rates are far too low and the hours of labour are far too long? Why should he leave the field to two unions dominated by political parties of opposing concepts, which fact was the cause of the trouble last October and will be the cause of trouble in the future?

Mr. Profumo: Everything possible is being done, but, as the hon. Gentleman stated, the difficulties are formidable.

Mr. Peyton: Is my hon. Friend aware that if these proposals were to have the result of higher wages, better working conditions and shorter hours in Hong Kong, it would at least be highly acceptable to the home gloving industry, which would benefit considerably by not having to face a flood of extraordinarily cheap goods?

Rooftop Dwellings

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many inhabitants of Hong Kong have been refused permission to occupy rooftop dwellings under the latest legislation; and how many have been provided with alternative accommodation.

Mr. Profumo: 458 rooftop huts have been demolished. They would probably have held 1,800 people. For the reasons which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on 19th December last, no alternative accommodation could be provided.

Mr. Rankin: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many people are now living on the rooftops of houses in Hong Kong, and when does he expect that he will be able to rehouse them on the ground?

Mr. Profumo: I really could not give any accurate information of that sort. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have an accurate figure, I will get in touch with the Governor, and will write to him, but I do not think it would be right to leave this matter without my saying that the Government of Hong Kong have really done a magnificent job with an extremely difficult problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CARIBBEAN

Federal Capital Commission (Report)

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions arising from the Report of the British Caribbean Federal Capital Commission (Colonial 328), with particular reference to paragraphs 45, 47 and 53.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British Caribbean Federal Capital Commission was an independent body appointed in accordance with the recommendations of

the 1956 Conference on British Caribbean Federation, to provide the Standing Federation Committee with impartial advice and information that would assist them in reaching a decision on the choice of a Federal Capital. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) on 20th February, that choice has now, by the decision of the Committee, come to rest on Trinidad. It is not one in which Her Majesty's Government would have wished to intervene.
The paragraphs of the Report to which the Question refers were written at a time when a general election was pending in Trinidad; they are an expression of the personal views of the three members of the Commission; and they relate specifically to the choice of a Federal Capital. Consideration of them in any other context is primarily a matter for the people and Government of Trinidad.

Mr. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that I am quite familiar with all that he has said in the course of his Answer, but will he be a little more forthcoming and make it quite plain that the implied criticism of Dr. Eric Williams, his party, and his Government is, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, quite unjustified in all the circumstances, and that Dr. Eric Williams and his people are not Communist, they are not corrupt, and they are not colour-prejudiced? Will he say that he believes that to be the position?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly agree that they are not Communist, corrupt, or colour-prejudiced; but I would remind the House that the members of the Commission happened to visit Trinidad at the height of election fever, when local animosities and divisions of opinion were rather emphasised, which, no doubt, might apply elsewhere in similar circumstances.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the capital site has yet been chosen, and what were the considerations which led the Commission to choose Trinidad?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite prepared to circulate a fuller answer on that matter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The precise location in Trinidad has not yet been fully settled.

BILL PRESENTED

EXPORT GUARANTEES

Bill to amend the Export Guarantees Acts, 1949 to 1952, presented by Sir David Eccles; supported by Mr. Derek Walker-Smith and Mr. Nigel Birch; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1956–57; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1957–58, VOTE ON ACCOUNT; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NAVY AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1956–57 AND CIVIL EXCESSES, 1955–56.

CIVIL

CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £917,893, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for sundry grants and services connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

VOTE 4. UNITED NATIONS

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for subscriptions to the United Nations and towards the expenses of the United Nations Emergency Force and for a grant in aid of technical assistance for economic development.

VOTE 9. COLONIAL SERVICES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,937,358, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for sundry Colonial services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; and certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine.

CLASS III

Vote 4. Prisons, England and Wales

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £117,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day


of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Prison Commissioners and of prisons, Borstal institutions and detention centres in England and Wales.

3.33 p.m.

The Chairman: I have been asked by several hon. Members about the scope of this debate. It appears to me that all the supplementary sums asked for in this particular Estimate are of moderate amount and that, consequently, the debate today cannot run so widely as to cover the policy of the original Estimate. There is no reason, however, why there should not be a full discussion of each or any of the individual increases set out in the Supplementary Estimate; and in this connection I would point out that the expected deficiency of £245,000 in Appropriations in Aid, Subhead Z, can be debated in just the same way as the increases under the other subheads.

3.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Thank you for the clarity of your Ruling, Sir Charles, with which I shall endeavour to comply.
The first part of what I want to say would be related, I think, according to your Ruling, to the salaries, travelling and other expenses of the Prison Commissioners. If we have not some idea of what is in their minds in the performance of their task, it would be wrong for the Committee to vote this increased sum necessary for their salaries. The few general remarks I shall make will, I hope, be in order in that respect.
This is, of course, one the most interesting and immensely varied problems which come within the sphere of my responsibility, that is to say, the problem of the way in which society should treat offenders against its own laws. It is a problem as old as society itself, and I am aware that today I cannot give any final answer to it, because the problem changes as society changes. Each of us, in our own generation, must attempt to find a solution acceptable in terms of our own human understanding and our own store of knowledge and experience.
Since we are discussing money matters under this Supplementary Estimate, we must consider a solution which is practical within our own resources. I have held my present office for about two months only, and the Committee would

not, therefore, expect me to make any startling pronouncement, nor should I be in order in announcing a complete programme of reform; but I think it is in order, Sir Charles, in relation to the subhead dealing with salaries, to give at this early stage, particularly in view of the considerable amount of work which I and my hon. Friends the Joint Under-Secretaries have already put in on this subject, some idea of the way in which our minds are moving, to discuss some of the problems which beset the Prison Commissioners, and refer to some of the work which is in progress.
I should like to make a hasty reference here, without going into detail, in view of what you have said, Sir Charles, to a matter which is of first importance, namely, the very limited amount of information and knowledge which is at our disposal. I say this deliberately, because I have already ascertained that, without accurate knowledge, we cannot administer this matter properly. Accurate knowledge is an indispensable tool of administration. We must know what is happening and why, and we cannot usefully plan ahead, in my opinion, on the basis of the knowledge which I have found at my disposal.
Hon. Members may remember an interesting article by Mr. C. H. Rolph which appeared in the New Statesman, which has, I think, wisely and rightly stimulated a great deal of discussion. This article chided the Home Office for spending less than £100,000 on research in nine years. I should like to be quite frank with the Committe and say that figures given recently in the House of Commons show that we have spent only about £12,000. This is the biggest initial shock which has come to me in examining this problem which has so wisely been put down by the Opposition as a matter for discussion this afternoon. I acknowledge straight away that this is quite unsatisfactory.
Some useful work has, of course, been done, particularly on Borstal training, approved school training and probation. There are several other studies, some of them on detention centre treatment, which are in hand, and we are grateful to the universities also for what they have done. But, in my opinion, much more work must be done, notably on imprisonment itself, which is the subject of this Supplementary Estimate. On this huge topic


we must have more accurate information, and I propose to give first priority, therefore, to the best methods of expanding our research programme.
We can, of course, say that we can rely upon experience alone. But we must also make the best use of the tools which the sciences of statistics and sociology have put into our hands not to replace but to supplement the knowledge we gain from experience. So much, therefore, which is all I think I am in order in saying, on the vital question of research and my intention of giving it a first priority in the administration of the prisons of England and Wales, which we are considering this afternoon.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned detention centres and a certain amount of investigation. Is that investigation public, or is it made for the Home Office?

Mr. Butler: They are public investigations and I will take the opportunity of bringing them to the attention of the hon. and learned Member, and, indeed, of the Committee as a whole, if that is desired.
Having managed to make reference to that point, which is one which I cannot expand for reasons which you have so clearly brought out, Sir Charles, but which I wanted to put first to show how we mean to go on, I come to the main problems of prison administration, which, I think, will be in order on this Supplementary Estimate.
These problems concern most what are called the local prisons. As is usual, the problems are those of overcrowding, understaffing—a particular provision is made in this Supplementary Estimate, namely, the salaries for the staff—and shortage of simple work for the unskilled. When I say this, I do not mean that there is no change to report since the last report was given. Much has been done and is being done, but the measure of overcrowding can be broadly summarised by the number of men who have to sleep, for example, three in a cell.
At its peak in 1952, that number was about 6,000. A year ago, it was 2,500, and now, I am glad to say, it is little more than 2,000. I am glad to say that this decrease in what is an unsatisfactory state of affairs has been maintained in spite of the unhappy fact that the overall prison population has risen from about 20,500 in

August last year to about 21,600 at a recent date.
The problem of prison administration, which the Opposition have asked to discuss this afternoon, is being tackled by the Government from two point of view: first, to increase the accommodation; and, secondly, to see whether there are any means of reducing the inflow of prisoners into the prisons. Both involve considerations which are finally not within my control. The first is finance, about which I think I can have a word or two in the right quarter; secondly, the opportunities for legislation, which would be out of order today as we are discussing the Supplementary Estimate; and, thirdly, the action of the courts. The latter, indeed, is not within my control at all.
I should, however, like to say a word about the building programme, because that is in the minds of the Prison Commissioners. Last year, the Prison Commission took over another open prison, making 13 in all. For the moment, I think, it is unlikely that this form of relief to the accommodation in prisons can be taken much further. If we were to do that, we might be taking undue risks with this valuable method and we must not place its development in jeopardy.
We must, therefore, look to the completion of the programme of new building which is now under way. I can only refer to this in note form simply by saying that I hope that the first of these will be ready for use early next year. It will be the prison for 300 men at Everthorpe, near Hull. There is also work on a similar prison in Lancashire, on the psychiatric institution in Buckinghamshire, which is generally known as the East Hubert Institution, which will start this summer. A small Borstal for girls will also open later this year and I hope that work on a second will start early next year.
As for the two Borstals for boys, a site has been acquired for one, on which work should start early next year, and planning clearance is also being sought for a site for the second. That shows that although when I first interested myself in this question, which I did some time ago, I thought that there was not very much outlook for building, there is, in fact, considerable outlook for improved building.

Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the proposal to erect a maximum security prison in Lancashire. It happens to be in my constituency. I and many of my constituents, knowing the scope of the need for new buildings, as we all recognise, are wondering whether the Home Office is following a wise policy in putting down these maximum security prisons in built-up urban areas. That is a question of principle which the House of Commons ought to discuss.

Mr. Butler: What I suggest is this. In my opening remarks, I am simply giving an outline of what is happening. What my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and I thought we would do would be to listen to all the constructive suggestions which are made and that in the light of the debate this afternoon, including the hon. Member's observation, we would be able to review our policy, and next time I report to the Committee or to the House I can make a full summary of our policy.
When all these buildings, for example, are in use—at least in five years' time—by our calculations that would reduce the overcrowding of local prisons by no less than 1,500 places. I think it would be wiser to concentrate now on the completion of this programme. We cannot see what the level of the prison population will be four or five years hence.
That is at least an outlook of building, which, of course, can be greatly improved upon. That depends largely on the economic situation. In so far as we can look ahead, a reduction by about 1,500 places in the local prisons will make a distinct difference to overcrowding.

Mr. Charles Boyle: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of building, can he say whether he has considered the building of remand centres, which might conceivably save the building of a prison?

Mr. Butler: I shall be making a special reference to that during my speech, because I regard it as very important.
I have other measures in mind which may well lead to a reduction in the overall prison population—that is to say, if no fresh influence outside my control adversely affects the level of that population. The first relates to short sentences. My

predecessor asked the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders to consider the various suggestions which had been made to him for reducing the number of short sentences of imprisonment. The Council appointed a sub-committee, which, I understand, will report to a full meeting of the Council on 3rd May, which will be quite soon. I shall study the Council's recommendations and do what I can to carry out any recommendations it makes.
So much for short sentences. But if we are to make a substantial contribution to the problem of prison accommodation, we must look beyond the question of short sentences. There is no doubt, as the article to which I referred drew attention, that while short-term prisoners place a heavy burden on the staffs of local prisons and so contribute much to the difficulties which spring from shortages of staff, they do not occupy a great deal of accommodation. I will give the Committee a figure which shows that. In 1954, for example, persons serving terms of less than three months accounted for less than one-twentieth of the daily average population in all the Commissioners' establishments.
We should, obviously, welcome any recommendations to reduce the number of short-term sentences, but we should also recognise that what would contribute most to a reduction of overcrowding is not so much the reduction of the number of short sentences, but that of long sentences. I will give the Committee a figure to illustrate that, also. A preliminary statistical survey on the basis of figures available in 1955 suggested that as compared with 1938, an increase of about 6,000 in the prison population may have been due to an increase in the numbers of persons convicted and of about 3,000 to an increase in the length of sentence passed by the higher courts.
This—let us face it frankly—is a situation which derives from the sentencing policy of the courts and involves considerations which are the concern of the judiciary and not of the Executive, although the Executive certainly has a distinct concern with the effects. Obviously, it will take time to work out, but there are ways in which the Executive, within its proper limits, may well seek to collaborate with the judiciary in this all-important question


of sentencing policy. I am not trying to state anything which is unconstitutional, but I am venturing into a subject which, I think, has to be ventured into if we are to solve this problem.
We need, therefore, to find out by systematic research much more than we know now about the results of the various methods of treatment which are available to the courts, and to place that knowledge at their disposal. We need also to put ourselves in a position to furnish the courts with the fullest possible information about the offenders before them so that in all proper cases they may be able to select the treatment appropriate to each individual on the basis of an expert diagnosis of his history and personality. If we are to do this, which is exploration work, we need the proper tools.
I am already persuaded—and this is in answer to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle)—that the first of these in order of importance is the remand centre for young people, for which provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, with which should be connected a similar centre for adults. It is very wrong that so many young people should come into our local prisons, which, as they are now, can make no proper provision for them, whether it be simply for safe custody or for the more constructive purpose of providing the courts with information about them; whereas in a remand centre, as I visualise it, we shall have suitable premises in no way connected with a prison, in which an expert and specialised staff will have every facility for making a complete examination of the person or persons and giving full advice to the courts. Such remand centres would, as I see them, not only serve to keep these young people out of prison but would be real centres of research into the broader question of juvenile delinquency.
I would say in answer to the hon. Member for Salford, West, that there should be an attached centre for adults. What we have in mind is an adjoining centre for adults, which will be absolutely separate from the remand centre for the juveniles but will use the same specialised staff. The same facilities will be available, according to our plan—hon. Members are at liberty to criticise it, so that we may examine their criticisms made

in the deihate—both for the unconvicted and for the careful classification of many of those who have been convicted—an important work which cannot be done properly with the present facilities of our local prisons.
In this way several purposes will be served. Many young people will be saved altogether from an unnecessary taint of prison life, and the courts will have really valuable help in deciding on sentences. The classification and treatment of prisoners will be better based, and the local prisons greatly relieved both in their accommodation and the pressure on their staffs. I hope to be in a position, even though I have had very little time, to start work on the first of these centres next year. The better progress we can make in this direction of the remand centre the happier I shall be.
I now turn to Subheads A.1 and B.1, dealing with staffing. The first problem, of course, is under-staffing of prisons. We still need about 1,000 more officers before the local prisons can turn over to a shift system which will give the prisoners a full working day and relieve the pressure of overtime on the staff. We are still below the authorised establishment even for the present shift system. I am glad to say that, as in another direction which I have mentioned, there has been a marked improvement. Recruiting has been better; not good enough, but certainly better. A year ago the deficiency was 235. Today, it has fallen to 125. By the end of July we expect to have gained 100 more, and there is a continuing increase in the number of applications. So there is a hopeful outlook, especially presented in the last few months.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about the kind of man who now applies to join the Prison Service? He will appreciate that one of the important matters is not merely the number of prison sentences and the terms of imprisonment but what happens to the prisoners inside, and that depends to a great extent on the kind of man employed, and the kind of thing he is asked to do.

Mr. Butler: I intended to try to say something about what the staff are trying to do by reference to the Norwich experiment, because I thought that would be


of interest to the Committee. I cannot give the exact delineation of the types recruited, but through the increased number of applications we are having a choice of people, a choice through which we think we can make the necessary selection of those who will be suitable.
Before we come to the handling of the staff I want to refer to the system of consultation which is at present in operation with the staff. The first thing I must refer to is what all human beings are first interested in that is, pay and conditions of service. The pay and conditions of service of the staff must be such as will attract and retain the kind of men and women we need, and so the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided to set up a Departmental Committee to examine this question.
It is over thirty years since the last independent review of this sort was held for this purpose, so this debate is coinciding with a real opportunity for us all which, I think, we must all take together. During these thirty years the nature and purpose of the service given by the staff have materially changed. I think that those who perform this duty must now reckon themselves as giving one of our more important social services. In the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself the position of the staff must now be reassessed in the light of the change. Meanwhile, the question of an immediate increase of pay, pending the report of this Committee, will shortly be raised before the Arbitration Tribunal.
That is the start with pay and conditions, and with an inquiry which has not been held for thirty years, in the light of the new experiments we are making and the new relations we expect to subsist between the prison staff and the prisoners.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: The right hon. Gentleman says there has been an increase in the number of applications. Does he know the number of people who have withdrawn from the Service? We are told that a number who joined the Service have felt much deterred by the conditions and have given up in despair.

Mr. Butler: I will see that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who will make a short speech at the end of the debate, will give the hon. and learned Member that figure.
So much for the material conditions of service, but those are by no means the only things which will keep the prison staff happy or make their job attractive. We want each and every person in this staff to feel that this is a real vocation in which he or she can feel a personal satisfaction. I cannot speak too highly of my contact with the Prison Commissioners, who would, naturally, wish to remain incognito on this occasion. My contact with them has shown me that they have been of the opinion for some time that their primary duty from now onwards is to try to give work in the Prison Service this sort of appeal to those who are engaged in it.
The first step has been, under their guidance, to set up a consultative committee. Here, every section of the staff is represented at discussions on matters which they themselves put on the agenda or which are referred to them by the Commissioners. That, I think, is a sensible method and one which brings the staff into the picture. Another decision which has been taken is to increase the number of refresher training courses for members of the staff.
In this way, we hope to establish much closer links between the staff and those who are responsible for them. Not only must we do this, but we must also establish, if we are to believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, conditions in which good human relationships exist between the staff and the prisoners themselves, thereby releasing tensions which would otherwise exist.
The officer must feel that he has a really constructive part to play, and the prisoner must understand that the officer is really there to help him and not just to keep him under control. That is why I referred, in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), to the experiment at Norwich Prison. Norwich was selected as a particular experiment in these new relationships because it is an ordinary local prison of suitable size, holding 220 men without overcrowding. The population includes the normal proportion of recidivists, with its fair share of troublesome elements.
I cannot say that any change made there is particularly remarkable by itself, but it is very often these small things taken together which make the change in the atmosphere. Officers get to know


their prisoners, and it is arranged, for example, that every man on reception is assigned to a small group under the particular care of two officers whose duties are arranged so that one or other of them is always about. The prisoners at Norwich therefore know that there are these officers to whom they should look for help and advice. The officers are encouraged to get to know their own group, both as a group and as individuals, and to be ready to make reports on them if necessary.
Among the many things tending to relax tension and to increase the sense of responsibility among prisoners is that all convicted prisoners, except in special circumstances which always have to be taken into account, are allowed to be in association outside the cells from unlocking in the morning until 7.30 p.m. Apart from other advantages, the time saved to the staff on locking and unlocking, together with some adjustments of their timetable, have made possible for the prisoners a working-day of over six hours. In other local prisons, with similar staff, the working-day does not always reach five hours. So far, therefore, the objects in view seem to have been achieved without dimunition of discipline and good order. The staff are pleased and the prisoners are co-operative.
The next step, which will be taken very soon by the Commissioners is to extend these methods to a group of the smaller local prisons. We can then see how we get on by experience. It is principally in this way, rather than by the appointment of assistant governors, which is a single step recommended in some quarters, that the better part of progress may lie. But it may well be that in our experience we may find that more extended use of assistant governors is necessary in some types of prison. I should like to hear what hon. Members have to say about this and about the Norwich experiment. However that may be, the training of these grades is now being reorganised, the main object being to place emphasis on good case-work technique as an essential part of their equipment.
So much for staffing under Subheads B.1 and B.2, to which you, Sir Charles, will observe I have adhered quite closely. I now want to refer to work which, according to your Ruling, will come under

Subhead Z, which comes very
appropriately for me to make a few observations on work and earnings. Perhaps the most important of all these problems is this question of work. I do not want to lay emphasis on the less attractive side of the picture, which0, unfortunately, seems always to attract the most attention. That, of course, is the shortage of simple work for unskilled prisoners in local prisons and the poor industrial quality of much of it—the mailbag work and other work on that level.
I will give further statistics to the Committee and try to limit them to the most simple that I can find to put the matter in perspective. Out of about 12,000 effective workers in local prisons for men, fewer than 5,000 were employed on the mailbag level in 1955, and I do not suppose that later figures are very different. We are making considerable efforts, in consultation with the employers' organisations and the T.U.C., in getting more work and more varied and interesting work to supplement our, perhaps fortunately diminishing, orders for mailbags. Some progress has been made. My hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has already had several interviews with the parties concerned and we hope to make more progress.
We are also trying to increase the opportunities for employing prisoners outside the walls—extra-mural employment. This is one of the most socially valuable ways of employing prison labour. I am sorry to state another fact which is unsatisfactory. It is that the number so employed at present is barely half what it was a few years ago. In so far as this reduction has been in sonic part due to difficulty felt by certain trades unions, we have been doing our best, through the Prison Commissioners, to find out what the difficulties of those trades unions are. If any hon. Members could co-operate with me in this task I should be very much obliged. We are engaged in these negotiations now. They are being conducted in very good faith and, therefore, I will regard these talks with the trades unions as being sub judice.
In emphasising the positive side of what is being done, I can say that we are getting a slow but constant introduction of new trades, such as light engineering, electrical installation, plumbing and radio mechanics, thus showing a


slight improvement even in local prisons. We are also showing an improvement in our vocation courses, so that more and more prisoners can go out with a diploma in their trade from the City and Guilds of London and other outside examining bodies. All this takes time and it costs money, but it is very important and progress must be made, because we have a very long way to go yet.
Closely linked with the question of work, which shows a slight improvement and must improve with the aid of employers and trades unions, is the question of what we sometimes call, or perhaps miscall, the total earnings of prisoners. This is a subject in which many hon. Members are interested. My predecessor made a statement on it during his term of office. I can tell the Committe now only that some improvements are about to be made. They are not very much, but at least they are a step which will bring to an end the worst feature of the present scheme, that is the so-called "beginners' rate" of 10d. for the first eight weeks. Under the new arrangement, all prisoners will start with a minimum of 1s. 8d. This, I realise, does not sound impressive, but it is by no means the end of the story.
When I come to look at this matter of prisoners' earnings with a fresh mind, I realise that apart from the financial implications of improvements that one might consider, there are deeper questions much more important than whether the maximum rate should be 5s., 7s. 6d. or any other sum of that order. If the object of paying these sums is merely to stimulate industry—and that, I must emphasise, was the original purpose behind the present scheme—then it can be argued that something like this scheme, with reasonable adjustments, would do fairly well. It certainly stimulates industry, but is this sufficient, and should we not look a good deal further?
What of the prisoner's self-respect? What of helping him to realise his family and his social responsibilities? These are among the declared objects of the treatment and training of prisoners. Might they not he furthered by a wider and more imaginative view of the possibilities of earnings as an instrument of training? It might be possible, for example, to devise a scheme which would permit a

prisoner to save a certain stun with which to help himself and his family on discharge.
Or, taking an even wider view—and in these few weeks I have made myself acquainted with the work being done by various international bodies on this matter—international bodies have looked at the idea that prisoners should be paid at a rate comparable with a normal industrial wage, out of which they would pay for their keep in prison, maintain their families, meet their social insurance and other obligations, save towards discharge and, possibly, pay compensation to their victims.
I understand from an inquiry which I have made urgently that the United Nations has noted this matter for special study and report. I hope we shall get a speedy report from that organisation, even though we may have to work independently as a nation on this matter and give an example to others.
These various ideas, which I have simply thrown out at the opening of the debate—and that is why I asked the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) whether he would mind my opening it—such as the prison population, the building programme, the nature of the staff, the staffing problems, the question of work and the question of earnings, are only some of those which it is possible, by ingenuity, to get into order under the very drab headings included in this Supplementary Estimate.
Surely the ideas which I have thrown out begin to lead us away from the simple conception of punishment, which, over many centuries, has occupied too dominating a position in our penal philosophy? May it not be that something of value was lost when the relationship between the offender and his victim was thought to be one which simple punishment could satisfy so long as it was left to the State to carry out that obligation of punishment? Was there not also some ethical value in the older conceptions, because they are the older conceptions, of restitution and compensation?
Here, I begin to look some way into the future, perhaps, Sir Charles, you may imagine to dream a little. At any rate, I am coming to an end. I believe that we might one day come to think of our prisons not as places of punishment—


though that they must be since deprivation of liberty must always be a punishment; not only as places where offenders are trained to be better men and better citizens, which is what they seek, however imperfectly, to be now; but also as places where an offender could work out his own or her own personal redemption by paying his or her debt not only to the society whose order he has disturbed, but to the fellow members of that society whom he has wronged.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: When the Opposition decided to ask for a debate on prisons we did not do so because we thought there was any party capital to be made out of it, or because we wanted entirely to find fault with the present situation. We did it for two reasons. The first is that the prison service, which the right hon. Gentleman properly said is one of the most important of our social services, nevertheless tends to be the Cinderella of them and, in the past, has usually been at the tail end of the queue. We thought that it was a good thing, therefore, that the public should be reminded occasionally of the work that the prison service is doing.
Our second reason was that we hope and believe that the right hon. Gentleman will follow in the footsteps of Lord Templewood and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and be a great reforming Home Secretary. Therefore, we thought it proper today to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of enunciating certain general principles. Certainly, the tone of his speech and the breadth of the canvas that he has painted has shown that we have good ground for believing that he will live up to the high expectations that we have of him.
I hope that nothing we say on this side of the Committee will be regarded as reflecting on the Prison Commissioners. They are doing an extremely difficult Job remarkably well. It is difficult because their function is twofold. First, they have to provide security for the public and, secondly, they have to seek to reform and rehabilitate the prisoners.
I believe that the importance of security can be exaggerated. Security often militates against reform and, sooner or later, the public will have to make up

its mind to what extent it wants security and to what extent it wants reform and rehabilitation. There is certainly no doubt in my mind that money is more economically spent on reforming criminals rather than on merely confining them. If it is necessary to do unpopular things in the furtherance of penal reform, we will gladly give the Government our support in doing them.
Nevertheless. much can be done in advance of public opinion, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made such a good start in enlightening it upon this important matter. First, the machinery has to be created so that it is ready when needed and, secondly, men and women have to be trained. One of the great mistakes which has perhaps held us back over the last few years has been to believe that prison reform calls for the expenditure of vast sums of public money.
I would say that a full complement of prison officers, a proper relationship between the staff and the prisoners, and a diagnostic approach to the new prisoner and effective after-care machinery for the discharged prisoner are probably far more important than new buildings alone, although I do not want it to be thought that I am in any way belittling the new building programme to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
I want to say how much we welcomed the progress report he gave us on buildings. I hope that the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to approve the payment of extra moneys for the Prison Commissioners indicates the confidence he feels that they are fully conscious of the importance and urgency of these tasks.
I do not think that this is a subject which will create any very pronounced party differences, and from the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman we would probably all agree upon three basic principles of penal policy. First, that people should go to prison only if that is the only way of dealing with their situation and requirements; secondly, that the whole of their treatment in prison must be aimed at rehabilitation; thirdly, that there must be no avoidable hardship for them in addition to the deprivation of freedom to which the Home Secretary referred.
The difficulty that we are facing is that the shortage of staff militates against the first two of those principles, and the inadequacy and obsolescence of our buildings militates against the third. However, if we have to choose between men and women and buildings, I would sooner we put men and women first and buildings second.
It is disturbing to find the extent to which specialist and skilled staff is available in other parts of the world when it is not always available in this country. At the Chino Diagnostic Centre, in California, for instance, there are 44 psychologists and social workers engaged exclusively on diagnostic work. In this country, with a criminal population which is larger than that of California, we have only 49 full-time medical officers, of whom only six have taken the Diploma of Psychological Medicine.
I am certain that more and better diagnostic work would help to solve one of the main matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the problem of the prison population. He said that accurate knowledge is an indispensable tool of administration, and that he proposed to give special priority to expanding the research programme. I hope that in the course of that he will be able to devise more informative ways of giving prison statistics than is at present the practice of the Prison Commissioners. It is extremely difficult to follow all the figures which they give.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the prison population as being over 20,000. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to clear up this point later, because, when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead), on 7th March, he said that the total population in Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales on 26th February was 17,779 men and 707 women.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): That did not include Borstals.

Mr. Greenwood: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that explanation. This illustrates the kind of difficulty that we experience in analysing figures relating to this subject.
I am glad to know from the statistics given by the Prison Commissioners and the Home Office that overcrowding in the prisons is at present on the decline. The Home Secretary referred to limiting the inflow of prisoners. I had hoped that he would go on to pay tribute to the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), whose Maintenance Orders (Attachment of Income) Bill will, I think, have the effect of reducing the prison population by between 3,000 and 4,000 at any one time.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about the tendency to longer sentences certainly enjoys the support of the Opposition. It is most valuable that he has said that he hopes it will be possible to collaborate with the judiciary on sentencing policy. The predilection of the judges for corrective training and preventive detention has, I think, added to our problems in respect of the prison population.
I think it may well be that the time has come for the Home Secretary to look at the whole working of the Criminal Justice Act, not merely with a view to considering whether our sentencing policy is right, but also to see what steps which were envisaged in that Act have still to be taken if the Act is to come into full operation.
If I might turn to Subhead B.1, dealing with staff——

Mr. Leslie Hale: Before my hon. Friend leaves that part of his speech, will he say a word about the emphatic necessity for reconsideration of policy relating to detention centres?

Mr. Greenwood: That is one of the points which I hoped the Home Secretary would review when he was considering those parts of the Criminal Justice Act which are still awaiting implementation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that there is a great deal of dismay among those interested in the subject at our slowness in implementing that part of the Act.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is my hon. Friend aware that a judge is furnished with a report from the Prison Commissioners on the suitability of the prisoner for corrective training, and if the individual concerned has the necessary number of previous convictions to make him


liable for corrective training, such a report almost amounts to asking the judge to comply with the recommendation of the Prison Commissioners that the prisoner should be sent for corrective training?

Mr. Greenwood: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) very much. I hope, Sir Charles, that he will have an opportunity to develop that theme in the course of his own speech if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye.
The Home Secretary is asking for an additional £442,000 for increases in remuneration. The increases in remuneration do not seem over the past year to have brought very much improvement in the staffing position. The Home Secretary told us that if three-shift working is to be started 1,000 additional prison officers are needed. In their Report for 1954, the Commissioners said that the staff situation was serious and discouraging, and in their Report for 1955 they said that the position was worse than ever.
The Home Secretary has rather encouraged us upon this point, but I should like to give the Committee the figures for recruiting which have been sent to me by the Prison Officers' Association. These figures relate only to men. The Association says that in 1947, 211 additional men were obtained; in 1948, 326; in 1949, 305; in 1950, 194; and that in 1951, after there had been a 20 per cent. increase in pay, the figure rose to 434. Since then there has been a general decline. In 1952, the figure was 124; in 1953, 207; in 1954, 21; in 1955, 35; and in 1956, 27.
The Home Secretary has told us that there has recently been an improvement in this respect. We are very glad indeed to hear that. However, I think it true to say that the improvement came about only when there was a certain amount of industrial uncertainty after the Suez crisis at the beginning of the autumn.

Dr. Barnet Stross: Is it not also true that in September, 1955, there was an increase in remuneration of from 18s. 6d. to 30s. a week, and might not some improvement have resulted from that?

Mr. Greenwood: I have no doubt that that is one of the factors. It may or may

not be a coincidence. However, the main improvement took place, I gather, when there was a certain amount of unemployment in areas where there are a number of prisons. Whatever the cause of it, the fact that we still have 1,000 fewer officers than are required if three-shift working is to be started means that the prison staffs are having to work regular and permanent overtime and that the "Morrison hour", which was introduced in 1943 as a temporary expedient, is rapidly becoming a regular part of prison life.
The Home-Secretary—we welcomed his statement—is seeking to improve the machinery for consultation. I should like, in advance of that machinery being improved, to tell the Home Secretary two of the main grounds of discontent on the part of the prison officers. One is the slowness of promotion. It now takes nineteen years for a man to reach the rank of principal officer, twenty-seven years to become a chief officer Class II, and twenty-nine years if he is ever to reach the position of chief officer Class I, of whom there are only 24 in the country.
We agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he describes this work as a vocation, but, although it is a vocation, it is a great pity if we discourage men and deprive them of their enthusiasm because of the slowness of promotion. I hope that the Home Secretary will look into the possibility of ensuring that appointments to the governor grades are made from inside the prison service, and not from outside, as has too often been the case in the past.
The second ground for discontent among the prison officers is the dilatoriness of the Prison Commissioners, no doubt operating under the dead hand of the Treasury, in meeting wage claims. I understand from the Secretary of the Prison Officers' Association that a pay claim was submitted to the Prison Commissioners on 31st October, 1956. A reply to that claim was not received until 11th January 1957, that is, two-and-a-half months later. A meeting with the Prison Commissioners took place on 23rd January and a detailed letter was sent by the
Prison Officers' Association on 25th January. A reply to that was not received until 19th February. On 20th February, the Association asked the Prison Commissioners to agree the


terms of reference to the Civil Service arbitration Tribunal and, at any rate, up to 9th March, a reply had not been received from the Prison Commissioners.
We welcome the inquiry which the Home Secretary is undertaking into the whole question of the prison service, but it seems a great pity to vitiate the atmosphere in which that review will take place by these wholly unnecessary bad industrial relations which exist at present. It is a thoroughly bad thing that the Prison Officers' Association should have been treated in this rather off-hand way; and I think it a pity that they should feel justified in saying, in this month's issue of the Prison Officers' Magazine, that
the Prison Service is absolutely seething with discontent".
Because, unless we can improve the relations between prison officers and the Commissioners; unless we can improve the atmosphere, the kind of reforms which the right hon. Gentleman wants will, I am afraid, be almost incapable of achievement.
The question of shortage of staff brings me to follow what the right hon. Gentleman said about the problem of work for prisons which is covered by Subhead Z. The news that the Home Secretary gave us about the change in the rates of pay was very good news; and if he will go further, as he suggests, and allow prisoners to accumulate earnings, I think that a great step forward will have been made. At the moment, unfortunately, in most cases prisoners are not able to work sufficiently long hours, or to do the kind of working day they want to do and which it is in their interests to do.
In paragraph 11 of the Appendix to Chapter 1 of the Prison Commissioners' Report for 1955, the Commissioners draw attention to the fact that
… in the local prisons it has not been possible to increase the working-week of the prisoners beyond about 25 hours on average …
although in some shops as much as 30 hours may be worked. So, obviously, a great deal remains to be done.
I hope that the Home Secretary will not be in any way deflected by the possibility of this costing money, because in the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, a Report of a Sub-committee presided over by my hon. Friend the

Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) included this conclusion:
Your committee took a most serious view of the short working week of the prisoners, which resulted from the shortage of staff, and therefore asked for written evidence to be submitted in the form of memoranda which are annexed to the evidence to this Report. Although the figures given there contain an element of theoretical calculation and are based in some respects on data which are a little uncertain, your committee consider that the evidence, oral and written, confirms the view that a substantial saving would result from the introduction of the three shift system in local prisons. If this could be done, there would be the beneficial effect, in a curative sense, of longer and more regular working hours and the product of a greater number of man-hours for government work. There would also, when the saving on overtime in excess of the Morrison hour is taken into account, is a financial saving to the Exchequer …
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in his new incarnation, will not be discouraged by the Exchequer from implementing the wholly admirable ideas he has laid before us today.
One thing in the Home Secretary's reference to work in prisons gave me particular pleasure. It was that he did not seek—as Ministers so often have done in the past—to make the trade unions the "whipping boy" in this respect. If there is opposition to work done in prisons, I am sure that it comes just as much from the employers as from the trade unions. But from whatever source opposition comes, I am sure that it is exaggerated and I think that the general experience has been that the trade unions have taken, on the whole, a most liberal and enlightened view of this problem. If the Home Secretary hopes that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will co-operate in discussing this problem, I know that many of us would be delighted to do so, and I am sure that representatives of the trade unions would share our readiness to co-operate in that respect.
The announcement of the Home Secretary about the building of remand centres was very good news and we are glad that it is being given some priority. I confess, however, that I was a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to Subhead J, which relates to the treatment of discharged prisoners and the whole question of the Maxwell Report. Today, probation officers, in ever increasing numbers, are undertaking aftercare for discharged prisoners. Most of this work is for prisoners or Borstal


inmates released under licence who are, therefore, under statutory supervision. That work is centrally organised by the Central After-Care Association, to which we are voting additional money under Subhead J. But there are a large number of prisoners in the ordinary local prisons, and even in the long-term prisons, who are released to the care of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies.
I am not altogether happy about the working of these societies in various parts of the country. I think that many of them still regard their duty as being purely to give some small financial aid to the prisoner on his discharge, and they have little conception of what constructive after-care work ought to be. Many of us hoped that the Maxwell Committee's Report would bring about a real improvement. It gave grounds for hope. It suggested that the societies were not all geared to modern case work and that monetary grants were unnecessary in the Welfare State. The Report further proposed that trained social workers, to be called prison welfare officers, should be appointed in every prison. The members of the Committee said that they hoped that these officers would have qualifications and training similar to those of probation officers, and added that the function of these officers would be to prepare prisoners for discharge.
I think it very necessary that in prisons there should be skilled social workers able to help prisoners with their personal and domestic difficulties and to prepare them against the day when they are discharged. The result of the Maxwell Committee's Report however has been very disappointing indeed. Numbers of probation officers looking after discharged prisoners find it difficult to get proper information about the behaviour and conduct of a prisoner during the period of his imprisonment.
Speaking in another place, on 31st July, last year, Lord Mancroft raised our hopes in this respect. He said:
… all the recommendations made by the Committee have been or are being, put into effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 31st July, 1956; Vol. 199, c. 485.]
I should like to know what progress is being made in implementing the recommendations of the Maxwell Committee. So far as I can discover only four or six prison welfare officers have been

appointed and I should like to know how seriously the Home Secretary proposes to take that Report.
I wonder whether the Joint Under-Secretary, when he replies to the debate, would tell us, for example, why there has been no such appointment in the big London prisons like Pentonville, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs. I hope that I am not being unduly suspicious, but I suspect that the explanation probably lies in a Written Answer which the then Home Secretary, now Viscount Tenby, gave on 3rd February, 1955, when he spoke of making three pilot appointments where local aid societies
… would welcome such an appointment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 147.]
The difficulty is that a not very progressive local aid society may object to the appointment of a prison welfare officer of this kind, and yet it is just when the local aid society is not very progressive that the services of such an officer are most required. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that local aid societies are not, as it were, vetoing appointments of this kind.
I wonder whether the fact that no appointments have been made in Pentonville, Wandsworth or Wormwood Scrubs is due to an objection having been made by the Royal London Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society? To reassure us on that point, will the Home Secretary tell us how many of these prison welfare officers are in course of appointment; what efforts the Home Office is making to try to secure further appointments, and what is the ultimate number of appointments expected to be?
Those are the points that I wanted to raise this afternoon. Many of my hon. Friends with much greater experience of these matters than I will no doubt have different points to bring to the attention of the Home Secretary, but I think that I can speak for all of us in saying that in spite of the criticisms that we make we are not at all defeatist about the future of the Prison Service. We believe that great progress has been made, and we think that if they are given a chance the Commissioners and the prison officers can make great progress in the future. It calls, however, for that quality of courage in these matters which the Home Secretary himself has shown this afternoon. It


calls for courage on the part of the Government, and for a new approach on the part of many of our fellow citizens both inside and outside the House of Commons.
On 7th August last year, in a leading article, The Times said:
Prison reform has always been dogged, not always consciously, by what is sometimes called the principle of less eligibility: the offender must always be worse off than the innocent. If there is only limited money to be spent, for instance on building, it must go to the shelter of honest men rather than the comfort of thieves. But if that line is followed, the prisons must be permanently at the end of the queue and no reform is ever possible.
It is because the right hon. Gentleman rejects what we might call the "last in the queue" approach that we shall await his efforts with sympathy and promise him any help that we can give in bringing about the reform of our prison system.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: After listening to the agreeable speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), and especially after the very liberal speech made by my right hon. Friend the Home-Secretary, I do not think that there will be any feeling of party in the Committee. I have recently visited three prisons, but I speak with diffidence because I know that many other Members know much more about the problem than I do. But certain things have struck me very forcibly. The first is the Victorian atmosphere that still pervades many of our prisons—the feeling, as my right hon. Friend said, of punishment being paramount. The second is that only a small emphasis is laid upon a reward to the State and a claw-back from the prisoner for the benefit of his own family or the family which he may have robbed. The third is that so little is done to qualify a prisoner to be a good citizen upon release. I therefore very much welcomed what my right hon. Friend said earlier this afternoon.
I want, first, to deal with my second and third points, namely, the reward to the State and the qualification of the prisoner as a reasonably good citizen when he is released. I know that a relative number of prison officers and prisoners make the problem very difficult to solve, but under a Bill introduced by

my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Miss Vickers) we hope that the number of prisoners will diminish.
There is another class of prisoners, however, who I think could be used much more usefully than at present. I speak as a happily married man, with my wife listening in the Public Gallery. I have never been able to understand why there is a rather fierce law for the male pervert and not for the lesbian. There is no danger to life or property from the homosexual who, I believe, accounts for 4 per cent. of the prison population. Such persons could be used for work outside prisons to a far greater extent than they are at present. I understand that between 600 and 700 indictable cases of this nature occur each year, where the offenders are sent to prison.

Mr. Hale: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman appreciates that when he uses the figure of 4 per cent. he is quoting the figure which is always given officially and which relates to the number of persons convicted for that offence. It does not relate to the number of homosexuals in prison. As I understand it, no inquiries have ever been made about that, and no one has ever tried to discover the number or attempted to classify the types of sexual perverts in prisons, except by reference to their convictions. We are now making these experiments in psychiatric treatment, but if a prisoner is treated by a psychiatrist and classified as cured he must still hang on for the rest of his long sentence because there is no power to let him out, and he is likely to go back after the treatment is ended.

Mr. Tilney: It is rarely that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), but I agree with him in this respect. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will look into the point that he has raised.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I think that the Home Secretary has power to let out such a person.

Mr. Tilney: I should not like to argue with someone who is so well qualified in the law as the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen), but in my visits to prisons I have noticed what a very small amount of work is done during the week. My right hon. Friend has already referred to that fact. People


are undoubtedly very much happier if they have a lot of work to do. Not only do they produce more for the State, but they become better citizens. So much of what is done in prison today stems from the old days of unemployment. I know that there a problem is caused by the short-term prisoner and the lack of prison officers. When I visited one of our prisons in the North the other day I heard that there was a demand by a local farmer for between thirty and forty prisoners to lift potatoes, but that demand could not be met because the necessary officers to act as guards could not be provided. That is a great difficulty.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider not so much the priorities but what can be agreed with the trade unions about work which would not normally be undertaken, such as land drainage or afforestation, and which would be of value to the State. I hope that he will also look into the question of work done inside prisons. There is no doubt that a lot more could be done than is being done at present. If one visits a prison one is apt to see that a lot of painting has been done to a small section of the prison while woodwork is unpainted and rotting in other sections. I have heard that more buildings would be erected if only the capital were available. For most building work the cost lies in the provision of labour—and labour is available inside prisons.
Mailbags can probably be sewn up much better by machine, but when I was going round a women's prison the other day I noticed that a lot of work was being done on the salvage of telephone equipment. I notice that although £100,000 is clawed back for the Post Office, the amount is only £60,000 for the Ministry of Supply and £25,000 for the Admiralty. Surely the War Office and the Air Ministry have equipment which could be salved in much the same way as the Post Office equipment is salved. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at these points, especially as that sort of work can be undertaken inside the walls without the problem of guards.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about incentives and paying more to the prisoner so that he can save for his family and especially for himself when

he comes out: because what hope is there when a man leaves prison and tries to find a job? He goes to the employment exchange and usually it is known where he has come from. It is extremely difficult for him, and, unless he has something to fall back upon, how much easier it is for him to get into trouble again.
There are only two other points of detail which I should like to mention. Prisoners—and this especially applies to those in women's prisons, such as Holloway which takes in an area, I think, from the Wash to the South Coast—have to go immense journeys on remand, so one welcomes the remand centres and one hopes that my right hon. Friend will try, first of all, to put the women in them, where the area is so much larger than that for the men. I hope, too, that he will look into the question of prisoners' aid societies and the reports that prisoners on licence have to make which show that prisoners frequently feel that the societies are working against them rather than working for them. I make the plea, therefore, that more use should be made of the prisoner's potential labour, thereby allowing him to achieve the wherewithal not only to repay the State but to keep his family when he leaves prison.

4.53 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: It is natural that I should follow the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) because he has made a warm and humanitarian speech and there is no dispute between himself and the Members of the Committee sitting on this side of the House. Inevitably, therefore, I follow the spirit in which he has addressed the Committee.
I owe two debts of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. One for his speech this afternoon, for its breadth, its understanding and sympathy and its humanity and because, when least week I asked his Under-Secretary whether he would put pressure on the right hon. Gentleman to take a humane line on penal reform, the Under-Secretary said that there was no need to put any pressure upon him. I was glad, therefore, to have these manifestations of the truth of what the Under-Secretary had said. My second debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman is for granting permission to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)


and myself to go to Wormwood Scrubs Prison this morning and for the arrangements that were made for us to visit it before we knew that this debate was coming on. It was extremely useful to both of us. While it has no direct bearing on what we are discussing today, it is already an earnest of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will—and I am sure that he will appreciate the spirit in which I am saying this—open the doors of the gaols to Members on this side of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has been most forthcoming in inviting us to contribute to this debate any suggestions we may have to make and I am happy to follow on this invitation. One of the things which concerns me is the way in which our judiciary see to it in every detail that a fair trial is given to an accused man. We properly pride ourselves on the fact that we go to inordinate lengths to prevent an innocent man being convicted and also to give the benefit of mercy to those people who are convicted. It seems to me, therefore, such a pity that our care for the citizen at one time—before the right hon. Gentleman made his speech today—and on many occasions, seemed to stop at the door of the court when the convicted man was leaving in the black maria for prison.
What so concerns me is the view that has been held by so many that we should be thinking in terms of punishing a man instead of thinking first of all of his rehabilitation. We are constantly thinking in terms, so it seems to me, like that. For example, I have read over and over again of a judge saying to a man, "You are a homosexual" or "You are a sexual pervert of some sort or another; I am now going to send you to prison where you can have the treatment that you need." Does the homosexual in fact get the treatment that he needs? Anyway, does the judge know how to treat a homosexual? Has he had a psychiatric report about the man? Does he know the depth of his perversion and the particular hold that his perversion has on him? Does he know that he is going to send a man to a gaol where very often there is no possibility of his getting the necessary scientific, psychiatric treatment and advice which the judge thinks that the man is going to get?

Mr. Hale: A judge of the High Court is the only high occupation today for which a man receives no training of any kind at all. He is trained as a lawyer, as a professional man, but when he is going to the Bench to administer penal matters he has had no training of any kind in penal matters.

Sir L. Plummer: That is all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should look with care on the psychiatric service in the prisons.
We met this morning the medical officer of Wormwood Scrubs. My hon. Friend and I were both impressed and relieved by the humanity of this man and by his attention to psychiatric problems. I think that he said that 80 per cent. of the mentally disturbed people who came into the prison hospital were cured by the hospital psychiatric service. What is clearly inhibiting the great development of the service throughout the whole of our prisons is the lack of necessary highly-trained people with the appropriate sympathy which the job demands. It does not seem to me to be any good anyone entering this service unless he has a vocation for it. The trained psychiatrist who has no interest in the end-product, as it were, in the rehabilitation of the prisoner, and who is only concerned in psychiatric experiments ought to stay outside the service. What we need in our prison service is a group of properly trained scientists and psychiatrists who are dedicated to the work they are going to do.
We have been dealing with the problem of the work in the workshops. In two of the prisons, the Prison Commissioners' Report points out, the average number of hours spent working in the week is 22. In other prisons, of which my hon. Friends have had experience, the maximum is about six and a half hours a day. I think that it is fair to say that the harder a man is worked in a prison at some reasonably intelligent occupation—an occupation which taxes either his intelligence or his strength—the happier the prisoner is, and the more likely he is to help contribute to his own rehabilitation.
Is it possible to continue with the organisation of prison work on the present basis? I am not criticising the prison officer, but when he is in charge of the workshop is he interested in the work which is coming out of it, or in


seeing that the Regulations are not broken? Is he standing there as a watchdog seeing that the men behave themselves, or is he thinking of ways of improving the technique of production in the workshop? I do not know. I am not yet sufficiently familiar with this penal problem to know the answer; but I do see the great problem which is facing the right hon. Gentleman if he is to develop the prison workshop.
The other day, the London County Council increased the contract that it places with the Prison Commissioners for the supply of coir mats. Immediately, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which had been supplying these mats, entered a protest. The London County Council properly decided that if we are to make any progress towards the rehabilitation of prisoners it is necessary that public bodies should give at least part of their suitable contracts to the Prison Commissioners, and it decided to stand by its decision.
Here we have a problem of maladjusted people in prisons trying to find work, blind people trying to find work, and then there are people in Remploy trying to find work. It is folly that these three groups of people, all of whom have to be looked after and are entitled to work, should be in any form of competition with each other. I seriously suggest that there ought to be a discussion on this between the Prison Commissioners and Remploy, and the Blind Institute all of whom are well versed in this problem of getting the maximum production out of people who are not the most expert workers, and who could advise the Prison Commissioners, who are faced with exactly the same problem.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to the bon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer)
for giving way. The problem which he
has just mentioned is even worse, because modern treatment in mental hospitals says that it is major therapy to do simple, unskilled work. There are many institutions run by churches which are also seeking similar work for itinerant people, casual labourers. The problem is therefore even worse.

Sir L. Plummer: That is no reason why we should not tackle it. The hon.
Member has advanced a further reason why we should stop this competition and set up co-ordination between the needs of the nation and the productive capacity of the people we have just mentioned.
In an age of ever-increasing technological development it seems ridiculous that prisoners are still stitching mailbags by hand and that we are not introducing power operation wherever we possibly can. It is clear that the Prison Commissioners' passion is to teach people bricklaying. I am sure that is very good, but I wish they would go a little further. The Under-Secretary of State, answering me last week, said that one of the problems of recruitment of staff at Pentonville was shortage of houses. Is there any reason why prisoners in Pentonville should not be used for the erection of temporary houses to accommodate staff? There is no reason why a bachelor prison officer coming into the service should not be housed for a few years, until the shortage is met, in the sort of prefabricated house which, in London and other parts of the country, served us so admirably immediately after the war. Trade-union objections could well be answered and satisfaction could be given to trade unions who might protest against this development.
Another thing that the Prison Commissioners might do is to train prisoners in the production of their own newspapers. I see no reason why there should not be a prison newspaper, which would be very good for the morale of prisoners. Why should prisoners not have the opportunity to work linotype machinery and produce pictures, as is done in American prisons? They get a news sheet which tells them of developments each day. It could be used to a considerable extent in the physiotherapy which prisoners are supposed sometimes to get in prisons.
Finally, I would refer to the civil process prisoners, who are crowding our gaols and whose fate will be decided, I hope, as a result of the Bill introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). From one of the Reports, I see that the number of civil-process prisoners serving gaol sentences has gone up since 1951 from 5,600 to 6,500, an increase of 900. If we are already paying, in the overcrowding of our prisons, for the luxury


of long sentences, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, surely we are also paying for the luxury of committals by the county courts?

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the figures include imprisonment for non-payment of fines?

Sir L. Plummer: I am not sure. I cannot remember now, from the Report which I read. The biggest total of committals was of those from the county courts. In 1951 they numbered 500, and by 1954 they had increased to 1,028. Do these increases mean that judges are now ignoring the power that they have to give people time to pay fines? Are they saying, "We will not give you time to pay your fine but will commit you to prison"?

Mr. Scholefield Allen: May I point out to my hon. Friend that judges in county courts do not impose fines? A man is committed to prison by the county court judge because, in the judge's view, he can pay and will not pay.

Sir L. Plummer: if these prisoners are not given an opportunity to pay their financial penalties—whether they are debts or fines is immaterial at the moment—are they being sent to prison instead of being given an opportunity to meet their obligations in some other way? These figures are astonishing, and the prisoners are cluttering up accommodation and putting extra work upon an already overburdened staff. I do not want to delay the Committee——

Mr. Hale: Perhaps I can give the figure that my hon. Friend wanted. The figure 6,000 does not include committals for non-payment of fines. These are as much as 4,900, of whom 2,538 were not allowed time to pay fines.

Sir L. Plummer: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will take that point into consideration.
When I was in the gaol this afternoon, I found it extremely difficult to look the chaps who were behind those walls firmly in the eye. I felt I had some responsibility for their being there, in that somebody, on my behalf, had made the decision that they should be robbed of their most precious possession, their liberty, and, in addition, should have inflicted upon them time after time a number of

indignities. I felt that this was a responsibility which I could not accept without making a contribution to a solution of the problem.
In the last hundred years our prisons have altered from being the vilest places of incarceration to something incomparably better. A great deal of that improvement has resulted from the individual work of individual governors. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that statement. Comparatively happy is the prison that has a good governor. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will unceasingly try to find men that have this vocation of wanting, above all, the rehabilitation of the men under their care, and who will find in their work the satisfaction that comes from good deeds well done.

5.10 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I wish to apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for my unavoidable absence during the first part of the debate. I have already apologised to my right hon. Friend for my absence. I understand that he gave a constructive and inspiring opening to the debate. It is, therefore, unlikely that the few points I wish to make will be new, but I wish to touch briefly on three main problems.
On the problem of staff, I wonder if it is possible to use a modern managerial technique to see whether staff can be helped. There is a system called "job analysis" which I believe has been tried in one or two prisons. I wonder if the Home Secretary will consider finding out whether that experiment was successful and, if so, extending it throughout the service, not only to help on the question of manpower, but to increase the enthusiasm and dignity of the staff.
The second problem is the interrelated one of morale, earnings and savings. I think it is very hard for civil servants, however enthusiastic and conscientious they may be, to find work for prisoners, particularly in the conditions which have been outlined by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) when there are many competing demands for this sort of work. I wonder if it would be useful to harness the good will and enthusiasm of local industrialists, even going so far as to try seeking such work in one region by the employment of a local or regional works manager. He could be


an industrialist of retired age, but enthusiastic and with knowledge of the work, who could help the Civil Service in this problem.
The third problem I should like to touch on is, perhaps, the most poignant of all, the problem of the families of prisoners. We either punish or reform the prisoner, but there is little doubt that the persons most punished are the wife and the children left behind at home. Would it be practicable to consider prisoners' families in relation to some scheme such as the S.S.A.F.A., which deals with the families of Service men? This is not within the sphere of the Government, but perhaps it is the sort of thing the Home Secretary could bear in mind in his frequent contact with voluntary bodies dealing with penal problems.
To come from a large suggestion to a much smaller one, I noticed when I was a visiting magistrate that there was no procedure whereby a wife was informed of her rights when her husband went to prison. She is left to find them out for herself. Often she is embarrassed about consulting neighbours. She may go to the Citizens Advice Bureau, but that organisation may not know the answer. Would it be possible for the Prison Commissioners to issue a small leaflet giving her information about her rights—the numbers of letters she may send, the number of visits she may pay to the prison and things of that sort? The prisoner could be asked whether he would like such a leaflet sent, and if so, to whom. That would be a small, human touch which might alleviate to a minute extent the pangs suffered by what frequently is an innocent family.
These are small suggestions which I make to my right hon. Friend. They might achieve much, and certainly they would cost very little. I hope that they will be considered among the larger reforms he has in mind.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. George Benson: The remarks of the Home Secretary on the subject of research were most heartening. Probably they formed the most important things he said. One of the main troubles of the penal system has always been that everybody knows exactly how to treat criminals. The re-

suit is that nobody has ever troubled to find out anything and probably we know next to nothing.
I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, having made that most important announcement, slipped off rather into the old attitude of mind by suggesting that the Committee should express its opinion on the Norwich Scheme. The Committee knows nothing about the Norwich Scheme. We shall not learn anything about the Norwich Scheme unless we regard it as a controlled experiment and the basis for research. We are here dealing with one of the most complex and difficult problems it is possible for us to tackle—the changing of the personality of men who have proved anti-social. The idea that we can do that easily or that we can know how to do it without the most elaborate and prolonged research seems completely unrealistic.
I was very pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to expand the earnings scheme. The original intention of that scheme, he said, was to stimulate industry. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong. The scheme was started by £500 raised by the Howard League for Penal Reform and presented to the Prison Commissioners for the purpose of starting an earnings scheme, for which the Howard League had a very much wider motive. In passing, I note that the Prison Commissioners in references to the scheme in their Reports never referred to its origin.
I turn to the Supplementary Estimate. I notice that the two main savings are under the headings of "New Buildings, Alterations, &c." and "Materials and Services for Farming, Manufacturing and Training". Unfortunately, those are the two things on which we should try to save least. This means that there has been a slowing down of essential work. On new buildings there is a saving of £270,000. The right hon. Gentleman gave us very good news when he said that Everthorpe is to be finished at the end of next year.

Mr. R. A. Butler: At the beginning of next year.

Mr. Benson: That is even better. I wish to call attention to the immense number of items which in
the original Estimate were comprised in the section dealing with new buildings. Everthorpe is one prison, but there are forty or fifty


prisons. Every one of them either needs most drastic alteration and modification or rebuilding. We have a programme for rebuilding which would take years to accomplish. It is very disturbing to find that this year we have not even reached the very modest target the Commissioners set themselves.
We are doing nothing like what we might to utilise prison labour for building and building works in prisons. We want another Joshua Jebb in the prison service. Joshua Jebb was the architect of Pentonville. Whatever our views about Pentonville now, when it was built it was an enormous improvement on any prison built before in this country. Joshua Jebb was not satisfied with building Pentonville, but, in the six years following its erection, fifty new prisons were built, comprising something like 11,000 cells.
In 1850, when Jebb was in control, Dartmoor was built, not by skilled labour but by the unskilled labour which came from Newgate. If we are to tackle the two problems—the problem of our prisons and all the necessary buildings, including officers' houses and the like, and the problem of the provision of adequate, reasonably interesting work for the prisoners—there is no reason that we should not do what Jebb did; in other words, start trying to rebuild our prisons with the use of a very much higher proportion of unskilled labour than we normally use now. Dartmoor was built by unskilled labour in twelve months, and I do not think anybody who has any experience of Dartmoor would describe it as jerry-built. It is extraordinary how good the quality of the work which is done by unskilled labour can be.
At the moment the Prison Commissioners are modernising Lancaster Prison. I think Lancaster Prison is perhaps unique among English prison buildings. It was built in the eighteenth century in the middle of a fourteenth century castle. In the middle of the fourteenth century castle is a great Norman keep. The penal history of Lancaster goes back a long time, because under the walls cut in the living rock is an underground cell with great iron rings let into the stone; they took the Lancashire witches there and held them until they took them out to be burned outside the castle walls.
The Commissioners are modernising Lancaster Prison and making an extraordinarily good job of it. It is being done by unskilled prison labour. From the point of view of surveillance, Lancaster Prison must be a governor's nightmare. It is all corridors, turnings and staircases. The prisoners there are not stars, not first offenders, but the ordinary prison scallywags. Nevertheless, they are working with the minimum supervision, frequently without supervision, and are turning out extraordinarily good work.
Already the sanitation position in Lancaster Prison is streets ahead of that in any other prison in the country. It is the one prison which has hot and cold water laid outside the cells, with one wash-basin to every five prisoners. There are one or two skilled men in charge and a large number of unskilled prisoners, working well because they are interested in the job they are doing. It must be borne in mind that from the building point of view modernisation and alterations are very much more difficult than straightforward new building. If they can do that, then we can employ a large building force of our own unskilled labour in building our new prisons and observation centres, and in building Grendon Hall and anything else for which the right hon. Gentleman can screw money out of the Treasury hoard.
A point which has been mentioned by
several hon. Members concerns working for industry. Although there are many difficulties in the way, the problem is not a very large one, even if we take into consideration the blind, Remploy and the mental hospitals. The Prison Commissioners are best placed of all, because the blind, Remploy and the mental hospitals are all employing people who are defective in one way or another. If we take them all together and compare the number with the number of people employed in our industrial cities, we see the size of the problem.
How many can the Prison Commissioners bring into this pool of labour? At the very most it is about 4,000. There are 20,000 prisoners, including a large number of old and including the ineffective and the maintenance staff, for a large number of people must be employed on simple routine work around the prison,


apart from production. Our prison population of 20,000 includes women and Borstal boys and girls, and I should be astonished if we could put 4,000 to productive labour outside the prison service or outside the Government service. It is very important that we should develop this work.
There is a very big drop in the Appropriation-in-Aid this year. We must bear in mind in this connection that the Government take about nine-tenths of prison production. Referring to the Estimate—not the Supplementary Estimate—we find that about £120,000 is earned by hiring out prison labour. This is a relevant point because it is on this that we have a deficit. There is about £100,000 worth of sales to non-governmental organisations. Those are the only two of the Appropriations-in-Aid which have not dropped. In fact, the Prison Commissioners have most of their eggs in one basket, and if, as a result of Government policy, there is contraction in expenditure, immediately there is underemployment of prison industry. It is therefore important that we should expand the area over which we can spread the sales and the work.
I want to revert to the use of prison labour for building. I have referred to unskilled labour, but not all the labour in the prisons is unskilled. There are excellent building classes, for instance. Anybody who has seen the work which is turned out in these classes will realise that we have a large supply of bricklayers who should be employed on doing prison work. Excellent work is turned out in joinery in Durham Prison, we have an iron foundry in Wakefield Prison, we have blacksmithing in Dartmoor and in the Verne. Thus, there is a very big nucleus for expanding the work of prison building, modernisation and improvement and for tackling new building jobs. If the right hon. Gentleman can get money out of the Treasury and will utilise the labour available inside the prison system, he will make much more progress than we have made in the past.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: This is the second occasion on which I have had the privilege of following the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) on this subject. When he addressed the

House on it last summer I found myself agreeing with everything he said, and I do so also on this occasion. I find myself particularly in agreement with what he said about the standard of unskilled labour in the prisons at present. He referred to the blacksmiths department at Dartmoor. I, too, have seen that department, and I know that experts who have been there have been unable to fault the standard of work in it. I have also seen the very high standard of work done in other prisons, particularly in Wandsworth, where the workshops are of the highest order.
That brings me to the point that I should like to make to my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary—the small amount of work now being done in the prisons. I am all for a humanitarian approach and for extending leniency to the first, and perhaps even to the second, offender, but when it comes to someone who is continually going back to prison and persistently offending against society, I believe that the only cure is far harder work than he is now required to do in prison.
The average working week for the persistent offender is from 20 to 22 hours. That is, of course, ludicrous. We know why it is not extended. There is the shortage of working facilities, and the lack of capital expenditure to which the hon. Member for Chesterfield has already referred. There is also a shortage of prison staff. But, more important than that, there is, I regret to say, a great deal of opposition from the trade unions. That is perfectly understandable. As one who has been a trade union official, I can entirely sympathise with that attitude.
It is probably the experience of almost every prison governor that when he has tried to engage upon contracts in the neighbourhood of the prison he has encountered opposition from both the trade unions and the local employers. Therefore, my plea is that my right hon. Friend should reconsider the whole question of labour and the amount of work being done in the prisons and, as the problem can only be resolved at the highest level, to go into it with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that the prison policy can be so reconstituted that far more work is done and there can be some deterrent to the persistent offender.
I would most certainly draw a definite dividing line between the treatment of those who are persistent offenders and of those who are going to prison for the first or second time. It is only in respect of the persistent offender that I urge my right hon. Friend to embark on a policy of far harder work. In my view, that is the one thing that will deter these persistent criminals from risking prison by offending again. That, of course, cannot be brought about unless opposition from the employers and the trade unions is overcome at the highest level of consultation between the Government and industry.
I believe that when I last spoke on this subject in the House I embarked on some arithmetical calculations as to the amount of work that would need to be done if the prisons were to pay their own way. I think I worked it out that little more than a 40-hour week would make it quite possible for the average prisoner to make sufficient goods, or give sufficient services, to pay his way to such an extent that, instead of the prisons costing the taxpayer some £6 million a year, they could pay their way and, on top of that, embark also on the capital expenditure which is so necessary. That is my suggestion to my right hon. Friend in a very few sentences, and I apologise if I have repeated the point I made some months ago.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood): The Home Secretary has introduced this debate in a tone that, I think, must be productive of good. I am grateful to him for the announcement he has made, which goes to show that at least he has the desire to accomplish much of what many of us who have been working for penal reform have desired over a number of years.
Today we are examining Estimates amounting to £8,320,693, to which has to be added a Supplementary Estimate of £117,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) mentioned the Estimates Committee over which I had the honour and privilege to preside when it examined the Estimates for 1952–53. Those Estimates amounted to £6,332,843 so that, in the past four years the amount has increased by £2 million. When we were examining the state of our prisons then, we had a

record prison population of 23,000 for England and Wales. According to a Parliamentary Answer given last week, that figure has since been reduced to 18,486. The prison population has declined since 1952, yet the expenditure has increased, and we are now to approve an additional £117,000.
In spite of that, we have all the evils to which the Select Committee drew attention then. We have the existing prison buildings; the mediaeval structures to which hon. Members have referred. We have overcrowding. Even though the number sleeping three in a cell has been reduced to 2,000, this is surely thoroughly unsatisfactory. The sanitary conditions in prisons today are abominable. Here I am referring to local prisons and not to the sort to which the hon. Member for Chesterfield drew attention. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Body) referred to work. Today, thousands of prisoners are working only from 20 to 25 hours a week, without any hope and without any incentive at all.
The tragedy, therefore, is that not only are we not getting value for our money—and for the additional money which we are now being asked to vote—but the primary purpose—the training and treatment of prisoners—is being completely frustrated. I do not under-rate the improvement in the progress made by the Prison Commissioners in specialised prison treatment, but surely the primary purpose of imprisonment is to enable prisoners to be trained, and to establish in them the will to lead a good and useful life on discharge. We have to admit today that the first and most important duty, the provision of work, is not being met.
The Prison Officers' Association, in a letter which they sent to me this week, made a statement which I would draw to the attention of the Committee. I ask hon. Members to consider the serious charge which is made in this letter. This organisation, which is the trade union of all the prison officers in the country, says:
It is the considered view of the Association that in many local prisons, prisoners are being discharged physically and mentally lazy.
What an indictment this is.
I have recently forwarded to the Home Secretary a letter which contains the views of the Warwickshire Society of Friends. In that letter which that Society


sent to the Prison Commissioners on 8th December, the Quakers, who have been so interested in this matter and so valuable in drawing attention to the anomalies and injustices of our prisons, said to the Prison Commissioners:
The men learn idleness and all its associated evils and no one can say that even one of them has in any sense been improved by his stay in the prison"—
That refers to the Winson Green Prison, Birmingham—
in spite of all the effort put into the work by the staff and instructors. Mailbag sewing by hand and mat-making by means of antiquated machinery is soul-destroying and degrading to the men, besides being unprofitable and a wastage of manpower of which the taxpayer is almost completely unaware.
The Society asks for an effort to be made
to persuade Government Departments to revise their methods of contract placing …
which is what the Select Committee on Estimates asked in 1952.
The Commissioners five weeks later replied:
Mailbag sewing is the only suitable occupation for unskilled prisoners which is available on a sufficient scale and if they were not to make use of it very many prisoners would have no occupation at all.
But is this not an admission of failure? Sir Lionel Fox himself, when addressing the Select Committee on Estimates in January, 1953, said:
The Commissioners fully agree in principle that the hand sewing of mailbags should be limited to those prisoners who are incapable of work of a higher grade.
I have in recent times been to Strange-ways Prison, Manchester, Wandsworth Prison and Winson Green Prison, Birmingham, and I discovered, as the Select Committee previously found, there are many prisoners in our local prisons engaged on mailbag sewing but who are capable of more intelligent work.
Not being satisfied with the position, the Quakers of Warwickshire and Birmingham asked if pressure could in any way be brought to bear upon the authorities concerned. I realise the problem of the Prison Commissioners. They replied saying:
The Commissioners must dissociate themselves from any suggestion of bringing pressure to bear upon these Departments.
Why should our officials feel that they are not under some obligation to bring the

utmost pressure to bear? The first duty of the Government is to provide full employment. The failure to provide work for the prisoners means that the Government are permitting conditions which destroy the character and moral fibre of the prisoners. That is quite contrary to all good human government and, in my opinion, is an outrage of our Christian order of society.
The Home Secretary has made an important announcement. Of course, the problem of production is bound up with earnings, and I am pleased that at long last we have some statement that follows the line that the Select Committee of Estimates recommended. But although the Home Secretary has suggested an improvement, the average amount earned weekly by workers in prisons on flat rate is 2s. 6d, a week and the average piece-rate worker earns 2s. 9d. a week. The former Home Secretary gave me a promise a year ago that a scheme had been prepared which he hoped would increase output and would be put into effect as soon as financial conditions permitted. Financial conditions have not permitted until this afternoon, when the Home Secretary made that welcome announcement. But it is not sufficient.
I would call the attention of the Home Office to conditions at Winson Green, which is typical. When I visited Winson Green a few weeks ago there were 538 prisoners of whom 281 the week before had earned 10d. The prices of everything have increased. Prisoners are allowed only one ounce of sugar per day. Therefore, the prisoners spend a good deal of their earnings on buying sugar. But sugar has gone up to 10d. a pound, and if prisoners buy one pound of sugar, that takes one week's wages. By the new improvements only half a week's wages will be required for such a commodity, but this is not a great deal better. Therefore, I am very interested in the Home Secretary's announcement relating to a review of the wider question of reform.
Surely, this country ought at least to be up to the standard of the Scandinavian countries. I will not go into the details, but I should like to mention that I had an opportunity during the past year to visit some prisons behind the Iron Curtain. I visited two prisons in Eastern Germany, and I shall be delighted to send the Home Secretary the full details


of my investigation into those prisons because they are very interesting. One of the prisons in East Berlin was turning out complete bacon-slicing machines. Men were being trained in skilled work. I do not intend to argue whether or not a number of the prisoners ought to have been there. The crimes for which they were imprisoned are another matter. But these prisoners are doing something really valuable.
What is more important, I understand that in East Germany the rate for the job has been approved. Therefore, there is no question of this absurd system which we have in our prisons of paying a prisoner 10d. or 1s. 8d. a week. A prisoner in Eastern Germany is paid the normal rate for the job, as approved by the labour standards there, and he is expected to support his family and must pay to his wife and children. He must also save for the time when he is discharged from prison.
I was very interested in the article written by Mr. C. H. Rolph in the New Statesman, in which he suggested that at least a prisoner ought to be able to save enough to keep himself for two weeks. In my opinion, that is absolutely absurd. If a prisoner has been in prison for a number of years, he ought to be able to rehabilitate himself to a far greater extent than that. Therefore, if the Home Secretary will look at this wider question of reform, he will find that he has a very difficult path to tread, because it will probably be more costly to begin with. Nevertheless, I think he will earn the gratitude of all hon. Members of this House, and will be able to fortify himself with the support which he will receive from both sides of the House, if he will pursue it.

Dr. Stross: I was interested in what my hon. Friend has said about the rate for the job being paid in Eastern Germany and about the payment of subsistence allowances for a prisoner's family and saving for the future. Did my hon. Friend ascertain how much was left for the prisoners themselves for their weekly pin money or their own comforts?

Mr. Yates: It was very interesting to walk into the canteen with the prisoners and see the way in which they could purchase sometimes food or sometimes drink much more easily, of course, because of

the amount that they were able to retain for this purpose while in prison, which was a very considerable improvement on anything we know.

Mr. Body: Is it not also true that Eastern Germany, out of the wages which a prisoner receives, he is expected or even required to pay compensation to his victim, or the person from whom he has stolen?

Mr. Yates: That may be so, though I cannot say, speaking from memory. I took full details of the scheme and what they were expected to pay, and I think that, in fact, that would be preferable to the present system.
In the case of a prisoner in our British prison who is a smoker, for example, what can he do with the small amount that he receives? He can buy a 3d. packet of cigarette papers and a quarter of an ounce of the cheapest shag tobacco, but that is all that he can possibly do, and, therefore, we get these "tobacco barons" and a black market being encouraged, which in my view is an absurd situation.
I wish to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the cost, which is included in the figures now before us, of the preventive detention prisons. The Home Secretary, in his opening statement, asked what we could do to reduce the number of prisoners serving long sentences. I am told that the average cost of all our prisoners is £294 per annum, which is approximately £6 per week, but the average cost at Parkhurst of a preventive detention prisoner is £384 per annum, which is nearly £8 a week. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether this cost could not be reduced by a more sensible arrangement, which might ultimately involve legislation.
I am of the opinion that the preventive detention system has completely failed. I understand, from figures which I have obtained from the Prison Commissioners, that in the last four years, from 1953 to 1956, the number of long-term prisoners who have been seen by the Preventive Detention Board is 572, and that the Board could only agree to 62 of them being admitted to the third stage. That surely shows that in fact there is something wrong with our system.
I am bound to say that the Preventive Detention Board is given a task which I believe is the prerogative of God. I do not see how this Board can possibly assess the character or prospects of an individual in the way it is expected to do, and with the material which it has available. Certainly, in 1956, only 19 prisoners could be admitted to the third stage out of 151 prisoners seen.
I asked the Home Secretary two years ago if he would release one of these long-term prisoners, a blind man who was sent to prison for eight years' preventive detention. He has no home, and he was then 72. Surely, it would have been better if the Board could have found a blind institution to which this man could have been sent, but no, he could not be admitted to the third stage and so he had to remain. He is being released this month, and he is going to an institution which is not the one to which he wanted to go. Whether that is going to help him to be rehabilitated at the age of 74 I do not know.
Of the number of preventive detention prisoners who were discharged in 1954 and who have been admitted to the third stage, four have been reconvicted, and when we look at those not admitted to the third stage, but who have to serve the full term or five-sixths of their term, out of 83 discharged, 45 were reconvicted. It seems to me that the longer we keep prisoners in these conditions, the worse they become, not the better, and I am convinced, having seen a few prisons in the United States, that the long sentence is not the solution. All the prison authorities are now coming round to the view—and they have had very long sentences in America—that the long sentence will not solve the problem. Therefore, if we are to reduce these figures, we must do something to get some of these prisoners released, and certainly not keep them in conditions which embitter them and make them into worse criminals.
Finally, there is another point on which I want to question the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement that he is interested in research, and that he will spend more money on research, but why does he not lift the veil of secrecy from our prisons? Why cannot the Home Secretary do that? I was talking to a prison chaplain in one of

the London prisons, and he said to me, "Of course, I am bound to admit that there are conditions to which I, as a Christian minister, would like to draw attention, but, of course, I am sworn to secrecy. There is the Official Secrets Act, and I cannot talk freely." We never hear these Christian ministers coming out into the open and saying what they think ought to be done in order to rehabilitate a prisoner.
Why not lift this veil of secrecy, and why not allow hon. Members of this House greater freedom to find out the facts? For instance, why did the former Home Secretary prevent me seeing a prisoner and a prison officer in order to obtain the facts which I think are necessary if we are to do our job properly? Why must there be all these petty restrictions?
If I want to find out the facts why should I be prevented from doing so? Why, for instance, did the former Home Secretary prevent a long-term prisoner, a man who had been in prison for many years, from writing to me to give his full impressions of penal servitude followed by preventive detention? I, as a Member of Parliament, had asked him to give me a history of his impressions and an account of his long experience. He applied for six sheets of foolscap paper in order to write that essay for me, and the then Home Secretary, Major Lloyd-George as he then was, refused to allow him to have the paper to do it. The Home Secretary told me he could give me all the facts. But I do not want the Home Secretary's view alone, nor do I want only the view of the Prison Commissioners. Why should not a prisoner be allowed to write his views fully, honestly and frankly to a Member of Parliament, especially when he has long experience?
If the Home Secretary would remove such restrictions as those, I believe that we should have a more open and frank consideration of the problems of our prisons. The prisons would then become more like the mental hospitals today; they are not taboo, and their doors are not closed to the public. We can get reform only so far as we are willing to have the facts and then, from those facts, draw the conclusions which lead us to reform.
I very much regret that even today, with all the improvements for which I am most grateful, our prisons are still manufacturing damaged personalities. For that reason, following the Home Secretary's advanced speech today, I shall look forward to the prospect of some reform and to the hope of our being able to obtain curative results, so that we may cure our prisoners and not rely upon the horrible punitive measures which today are the experience of the mass of prisoners.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: It is with considerable diffidence that I follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), becase he knows a great deal more about penal reform than I do. He has visited more prisons than I have, and, as he told us, in a very discursive and informative speech, he has visited prisons behind the Iron Curtain, also. I do not propose to traverse what the hon. Gentleman has said, except to touch very briefly on three points which he made.
The hon. Member referred to the tradition of secrecy in relation to prisons, which, no doubt, goes back a long way and in which our penal system is still to some extent shrouded. I hope that, with the promise of a "new look" which emerged from the stimulating speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the last remaining vestiges of this secrecy will, under his regime, be removed so that there can be no possible cause for complaint.
The hon. Member for Ladywood referred to one prison which he visited, in his own constituency, I believe, and quoted certain remarks made by the Society of Friends. Certainly, so far as those comments affect that prison, they are disturbing, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will take note of them. I hope, too, that what the Quakers found in that prison in the way of idleness is confined to that prison and that it cannot be said to be common to all prisons in the country.
The hon. Member for Ladywood referred at some length to earnings. He told us that the average rate was 2s. 3d, a week on flat
rate and about 2s. 9d, on piece rate. He might, perhaps, have

added, that these figures can, and do, at any rate, on flat rate, rise to 4s. or even 5s. Admittedly, it is not very much, but before we deride prison earnings we should remember that the favourable comparison which the hon. Gentleman drew with the rate for the job in prisons on the Continent of Europe, including those which he saw in East Berlin, applies to social conditions rather different from those in this country.
A prisoner in the Soviet Zone of Germany is not discharged into anything like the Welfare State conditions which we enjoy. Moreover, he has to pay for various things like stationery and stamps for letters to his family, and also, of course, he has to make provision for his dependants and even for the victim of his crime. All that must, quite naturally, make considerable inroads into his earnings. None the less, it would be a great advance if prisoners here had an opportunity of earning a little more than the comparatively small sums which they can earn today, particularly in the light on the rise in the cost of certain commodities which they would wish to buy, such as sugar, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I was very heartened and stimulated by not only the speech of my right hon. Friend but also by the sympathetic speech by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), which followed it. There has not really been a controversial note struck in this interesting and important debate this afternoon. I agree with what has been said by more than one hon. Member, that one of the most encouraging things we have heard is that first priority is to be given to research in the future programme.
Last summer, I had the good fortune and opportunity to attend as an observer the United Nations Conference at Geneva on the Treatment of Delinquency. This conference has taken place each year since 1952, and it is a tribute, if not to our prison system at least to the permanent official at the head of it, the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners, Sir Lionel Fox, that he has in each year since the original conference, been appointed its chairman, At that conference the products of the latest research in European countries and North America are discussed. I hope that my


hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will perhaps manage this summer to take a week, or a few days, off and look in at this conference, because I am quite certain he would thereby obtain some very valuable hints as to the lines research in this country should take.
There are one or two small points of detail on which I should like to comment. First, under the Subhead B.1, "Prison Staff", we have been told that we still need 1,000 additional officers to introduce a three-shift system into our local prisons, as there was before the war. If my hon. and learned Friend could give some further information about what the Government are planning, it would be most helpful. He told us last Thursday, I think it was, that the prison staff is about 180 below the maximum establishment. That establishment would appear to be not sufficient if we are to have what is required ultimately to return to this three-shift system.
We need in our prisons more staff who are suitably qualified, particularly in the higher ranks. We have been told that the ratio of governors and assistant governors in relation to prisoners is 219 prisoners to one in men's local prisons. We have also been told, however, that in certain prisons this proportion is higher. In Wandsworth, Dartmoor, Stafford, Manchester, Birmingham and Pentonville, the proportion of prisoners to governors and assistant governors is 300 to one. In fact, in Pentonville it is 487 to one. That makes a very startling contrast to the position in Sweden, for instance, where the ratio is only 30 to one.
The way to get the best type of prison officers is to attract people into the ranks by making their job more positive and constructive and less custodial, if I may use that word, than it is today. The aim should be gradually to turn what is now a service run on para-military lines into a profession whose aim is to look after specially difficult people.
Is it really necessary, for instance, to have uniforms in women's prisons? Does not the uniform and all that it implies for wearer and for beholder constitute a negation of the supporting role of the case worker, in which we hope to see more and more of the prison staff?

Mr. Tilney: Surely, in women's prisons many of the prisoners wear quite different

clothes. All sorts of different colours are used.

Mr. Hyde: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I was talking about prison staffs and officers, not the prisoners themselves. I quite agree that rather more has been done about prisoners' clothing in women's prisons than in men's prisons; but I do not wish to be led any further in that digression. Now, probation officers do not wear uniforms. In fact, they stress what is common between them and their charges. By reason of the difference in dress, that is not so in prison.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied about the training of governors and assistant governors? Should they not at least have training equivalent to that of a probation officer? Are not their charges even more difficult and if treatment is to be really effective do they not require understanding of the motives which cause people to turn to crime? Certainly, that is how probation officers are trained.
What about medical staff. Do we have enough? At present, there are 49 full-time medical officers, of whom only six in the prison service hold the Diploma of Psychological Medicine. Ought not all these prison medical officers to have psychiatric training? I ask my hon. and learned Friend to take particular note of that point.
I turn for a moment to Subhead J, "Aftercare". According to the Estimate, there is a slight increase of £5,000. Following on what was said by the hon. Member for Rossendale, it would be interesting if we could be told what is being done to implement the Report of the Maxwell Committee. I understand that there are fewer than half a dozen full-time trained social workers, yet the Maxwell Committee recommended that there should be at least one for every prison. If the hold-up in this position is coming from the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, what can be done to bring these societies to heel or are we just to sit down and let nothing be done? Surely, aftercare must be organised so that plans are made, not when a man is about to leave prison, but when he first arrives there, so that the plans can gradually develop and come to fruition during his stay.
What about befriending prisoners after discharge? How much are the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies doing of


that personal case work on which the Maxwell Report laid such stress? How many of them have adopted a selection and training programme for voluntary workers, such as the Marriage Guidance Council has? Again, could not prison visitors be encouraged to do more aftercare with the prisoners with whom they have already established good contacts? And what about the homeless ex-prisoner? Does my right hon. Friend not think that we need more hostels on the lines of Norman House?
Subhead G covers the escort and conveyance of prisoners. It is very satisfactory that one way of moving of prisoners from prison to prison is by motor coach, but when men are sentenced why must we still cling to the old-fashioned Black Maria, which is a stupid and rather cruel anachronism? Reference
has been made to the article by Mr. C. H. Ralph, in the New Statesman. In that article, Mr. Rolph quotes a terrifying conversation which he had with a prisoner who spent two or three hours being jolted round from prison to prison in London before arriving at his final destination, unable to sit down comfortably and unable even to get his hand into his pocket. Surely this is something to which my right hon. and learned Friend should pay particular attention.
I am very hopeful that a new era in the approach to prison and penal matters is opening for us in this country. I make one particular appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let them give a really courageous lead to the country. Do not let them be hamstrung by paying undue attention to the interests of security. Do not let treatment proper be held up unnecessarily in the interests of security. Is it better to make quite sure that a man stays for the full three years to which he has been sentenced in prison and comes out a worse man, or to take some risks and to turn him out a better man? I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will boldly and bravely choose the latter path.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I think that the Government will certainly agree that they owe some thanks to the Opposition for bringing this subject up for debate today. The hon. Gentleman the

Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) and I have found ourselves on the same side before on the subject of penal reform, and so, although, to use the customary words, I do not propose to follow him, that is only because I agree with every word that he has uttered.
There has been, fortunately, a good deal of agreement, if not, indeed, unanimity, here today upon this subject. It is a subject which can evoke deep emotion. The people we are discussing are a handful of people—20,000—the prison population; but they are men and women who have suffered deeply for their offences against society and the way that they have been treated in our prisons has never been of the high standard that ought to have marked our treatment of offenders against the code.
We welcome with great warmth the statement made by the Home Secretary today. He brought new imagination to the subject, and new hope to those who have been advocating the cause of prison reform. If he will only implement the speech which he made today he will add another to crown his political career. He has an enormous opportunity to do this work on behalf of a few men. They are only a few. It is not a work which will gain any votes from anybody. It is a completely non-party matter. It is on behalf of a few people who, having broken the law, pay, in my view, a very severe penalty when they enter our prisons.
I turn, first, to the question of preventing people from going into the prisons. The greatest preventative there is against crime, and the greatest deterrent against the commission of another crime, if there has been a first slip, is the stigma of prison. Once a person has gone to prison that great deterrent to the commission of a crime is exhausted.
What a calamity it is, which we who have the duty from time to time of considering whether to send people to prison find, that young people, under 21, who, an Act of Parliament says, should not be sent to prison unless there is no alternative, have, in present circumstances, been remanded in custody to gaol, so that when they go before a judge they bear already the stigma of prison upon them. Though the judge concludes they should be put on probation, nevertheless, they have already been in gaol.
One of the best things that the Home Secretary said today was that he is determined to go on with the remand centre. I know that this country has been through great trials and tribulations since 1939, but in 1948 we passed the Criminal Justice Act, which gave the Government power to build remand centres, and it is really shocking that here we are, in 1957, and there is not yet a single one in the country.
The consequence is that when a young person comes before a judge or magistrate, someone, perhaps, without a good home, and who cannot be accorded bail, the judge or magistrate has no alternative to sending that young person to one of the ordinary gaols, incarcerated there for, perhaps, seven, eight, nine or ten weeks waiting trial at quarter sessions or assizes. The new remand centre ought to be priority No. 1 for the Home Department.
The Probation Service has also an important part to play in keeping people out of prison. That service is, among our public services, another Cinderella. Any service associated with the penal system is a Cinderella. Probation officers do an enormous amount of work. As has already been observed in the debate, they now perform after-care of prisoners released from prison and are overwhelmed with work. It is work which has to be done, but they are not as well paid as they should be, and there are not enough of them. More people could be kept out of prison if the quality of the Probation Service were improved and if the number of the officers was increased.
Much has been said about what happens to the people who go to prison, about what the conditions in the prisons are. A number of educated men have had to suffer terms of imprisonment in recent years. It is fortunate in this sense, that they are men able to describe convincingly what those conditions are. What they have said about them has been embodied in some of the literature of our time, and there it is for those who want to read it. I am sure that the Home Secretary will have read the latest book on the subject by Wildeblood. He has written of his experiences in a gaol not far from here. If the right hon. Gentleman has not read it, I commend it to him.
I shall not go into the details of the state of affairs, though I mention for in-

stance the washing and lavatory facilities and the number available. The conditions in our old gaols are a disgrace to our country. I hope that before long they will be remedied. I am sure that the new Home Secretary, if he makes a hard, perhaps a harsh, drive, can do an enormous amount to improve even the present buildings, which we shall have to put up with for some time to come.
Despite the shortness of time for this debate I feel I must mention the detention centres which have been set up under the 1948 Act. I think that there are now two. The first started was at Kidlington, for juveniles under 17, and the other, at Goudhurst, in Kent, is for people between 18 and 21. There are two being constructed in the North and I hear that there is another under way. Those centres were set up when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was Home Secretary and we passed that Measure.
I had a certain amount of hesitation about the short, sharp sentence when it was suggested. Having seen it in operation for some years I ask the Home Secretary to look into this question to see whether reform is not necessary. I have visited Kidlington. I am far from happy about this latest penal reform system. I was really distressed when I learned, as I did some time ago, that magistrates were sending conscientious objectors to Kidlington and to other detention centres.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and I, and another member of the Committee, saw the last Home Secretary about this. I know it is a very difficult matter, because the Home Secretary cannot dictate to magistrates what punishments they should impose. However, if the voice of a Member of this Committee is of any effect, and the voice of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in commenting, perhaps, on what I say, may be of some effect, then I say that when we allowed these detention centres to be set up we did not envisage the sending of conscientious objectors to them.
A detention centre was intended to deal with a young man who, having once or twice kicked over the traces, was showing signs of the need for some discipline. It was to be a place to which he could be sent for a short period, for three months, six months at the outside, to learn discipline and good habits. I hope that no


more conscientious objectors will be sent there from this day forth.
Reference has been made to the treatment of homosexuals. I believe that a special committee is now studying this matter. Ever since I have been associated with the criminal law, I have believed that there is something fundamentally wrong in dealing with those who commit sexual offences and those who commit crimes against property in exactly the same way and in exactly the same place. I am sure that sooner or later we shall be driven to have special institutions for homosexual cases and sexual perverts of all kinds, where they cannot contaminate other prisoners and can receive psychiatric and other treatment by way of rehabilitation.
I think that I have expressed myself on all the subjects about which I feel deeply, and I hope that we shall be given some more encouragement by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department when he replies to the debate.

6.31 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I hope to say my few words in three or four minutes so that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who has been here throughout the debate, as I have done, may possibly have the opportunity to speak for at least two minutes.
I hope that it will be made clear by the Home Office, which has been described today by the Home Secretary as a social service and which we must look upon as such, that when we speak about the fate of those who transgress against our society we must never forget the staffs who have the burden of looking after them. We shall gladly vote the extra sum for which the Government ask today if it brings about a better service, one which the Home Secretary, in his admirable speech, said would deal with prison problem in an up-to-date way.
The Home Secretary said that the problem changes as society changes. We want the staffs of our prisons to be modern and up to date and to feel assured that we have confidence in them. We cannot have full confidence in them if we do not treat them well. Nor can we treat them in isolation without considering the prisoners. To my mind, there

are not two problems here but one only. Staff and prisoners must be considered together. The fate of the prisoner depends upon the staff and the kind of life that the staff lead must depend upon the reaction of the prisoners to them. I have no time to choose my words carefully, and I hope, therefore, that it will not seem condescending of me to say that a great deal of what has been said on both sides of the Committee today has met with my warm approval.
The Estimate includes an item of £20,000 for the extra cost of milk and bread and "etceteras", which, I take it, means sugar and other items of food. Prisoners "grouse" about their food more than about anything else—not so much about its quality as about the way it is cooked and served.

Mr. Simon: Mr. Simon indicated dissent.

Dr. Stross: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give Members of Parliament a chance of eating it?

Mr. Simon: I have eaten it.

Dr. Stross: We want to eat it, too, and then we can speak as firmly to the hon. and learned Gentleman as he seeks to speak to us now. We want to visit these places without people knowing that we are Members of Parliament. I know something about nutrition and about the way people think about their food. I know something about their reactions, their "taboos" and superstitions, and how deeply bound people are psychologically to the food to which they were accustomed as children, whether it was good or bad.
Prisoners go to prison, in the main, because they have offended against society and have not been able to control their own impulses. They have lacked self-discipline. In prison, discipline is enforced upon them and, as the Home Secretary made clear, they are not necessarily encouraged to evolve within themselves the self-discipline which will rehabilitate them. If prisoners "grouse" about their food they should be given some responsibility for their own food. Prisoners might be allowed to form their own committees and the responsiiblity for food might be placed upon them. They should be given an interest in the food. Then, if things went wrong it would be their own fault and if they


grumbled they would be grumbling against themselves.
If my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had been able to hear the earlier part of the debate, I am sure that, as a former Home Secretary, he would have noted that the whole atmosphere created today has been exactly the same as was the atmosphere in Committee in 1948 when we discussed these subjects and there were no divisions between us and the Whips were not on.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Charles Hoyle: I am well aware that the debate must end at seven o'clock and that the Joint Under-Secretary should have adequate time to wind up the discussion. Therefore, I will occupy only a few minutes of the Committee's time. All of us would have been very happy to make much longer speeches on the subject, which only goes to show our tremendous interest in it. We are all grateful for the opportunity of this debate. Above all, we are grateful for the Home Secretary's speech, which was very progressive in every respect. Those of us who have been interested in this subject for a long time have been very greatly encouraged by what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.
The right hon. Gentleman opened the debate by saying that there was no accurate knowledge on the subject, but I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will now believe that some knowledge has come out of the debate. I hope that he will agree that on the knowledge that does exist there is plenty of material for immediate action. I hope that he will see the debate in that light.
The Home Secretary said that a new prison was being built in Everthorpe, near Hull, to house 300 prisoners. I know that it is too late to do anything about that prison now, but I hope that the Home Office, when it comes to building more prisons, will consider whether it would not be more desirable to have a prison capable of accommodating about 150 prisoners instead of 300. In a smaller prison of that kind there could conceivably be a better proportion of responsible officers to the number of prisoners. We might then attain an ideal establishment. A prison of 300 is not bad. Compared with present practice it is very good, but I think that we could do even better when

the Home Office comes to consider building other prisons.
My last point is this. I should be very ungracious if I did not refer to the question of remand centres. Some weeks ago I had the temerity to raise on the Adjournment of the House the question of their provision under my right hon. Friend's Measure of 1948. All interested in the administration of the law have been concerned that his Measure has never been implemented. On that occasion, although it was midnight, I was then able to speak at much greater length on the subject. The Joint Under-Secretary gave me encouragement that night, although it was only by his tone and in no way factual.
This afternoon, however, the Home Secretary has gone further. I hope that I may take some credit for drawing attention to the matter, which has been in the public eye a great deal lately. However, I want to be as gracious as I can in expressing my gratitude and deep thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that in the next year we are to have the first of those remand centres. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) has just said what I feel; if I had to choose between remand centres or detention centres, I would say," Let us pack up the detention centres and have more remand centres", because I am sure that they would serve the ends of justice much better.
That is all I have to say in view of the limitation of time. I finish as I began, by expressing sincere thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the progressive speech with which he opened this debate.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Mr. Simon.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it believed in this House that women know nothing about prisons? I have moved from my place here only once during the afternoon, and that was during the last five minutes. I am the only woman who wanted to speak in the debate and I object to having been kept out of it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I am particularly sorry to have risen and to have cut out of the debate


the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who has studied this question so closely, especially as I have been working in close and happy association with her for many months.
It is no empty formula if I say that this has been an exceptionally helpful and constructive debate. Tribute has, I think, justly been paid to the breadth, humanity and vision of my right hon. Friend's opening speech. I confess that it was the prospect of being his lieutenant in the work in this field that so much attracted me when I was offered my present post.
We have welcomed this debate in the prospect that it would furnish us with the ideas of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are deeply interested in this important aspect of our social administration. My right hon. Friend stated that he was ready to examine with an open mind every suggestion put forward for the improvement of the Prison Service. I hope I will not be thought presumptuous if I say that our hope and expectation has been amply justified by today's debate.
We have had a number of interesting and constructive ideas, some looking forward to the shape of prison administration in years ahead, others of more immediate import. My right hon. Friend will be deeply grateful for the suggestions that have been made and, perhaps even more, for the spirit in which they have been put forward. I will not have time to advert to them all. I apologise to the hon. Members concerned and assure them it does not mean that their ideas will not receive consideration. This debate is only a first stage, and I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend and I will study and ponder everything that has been said today.
I now turn to some of the specific questions that have been asked. I want particularly to deal with detention centres, as they were not dealt with by my right hon. Friend, and I have been asked questions about them, and with work, psychiatric treatment and aftercare.
First, I want to echo what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) about the importance of men even before

buildings. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) was right in saying that the fact that we have old prisons is a severe handicap, but I know that he would be the first to say that it is the men who man them who are more important. It has been said that a school is a teacher with a building round him, not a building with a teacher inside. Perhaps in view of the demands for security one cannot get as far as that in the Prison Service. Yet it is that aim towards which we should be tending, and to which we are now aspiring.
The point about demands for security leads me to thank the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Body), who, I think, echoed it, that the distance we can go in relaxing security depends tremendously upon public opinion. I am sure that if the public is ready to relax some degree of security in the interests of reform, we can take larger steps forward, but as long as a great degree of security is demanded by the general public—and it is so even with open prisons, however much they are approved in principle, so long as planning permission is opposed by local interests on the ground that these are undesirable in their parish—we are limited in the progress we can make.
There are two other matters on buildings to which I want to advert. The hon. Member for Ladywood referred to the cost of keeping a prisoner at Parkhurst compared with a local prison. The reason is that Parkhurst, being a central training prison, is on a three-shift basis, and that inevitably increases the cost. On the other hand, the local prisons are not yet, unfortunately, on a three-shift basis, which is what we want to get, with the resultant difficulty that we all know about of organising work. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the other central and regional prisons are on about the same basis.
The other matter was that which several hon. Members mentioned, namely, the sanitary conditions in prisons. To some extent their condition is inevitable, considering that most of them date from Victorian times, and that the new prison at Everthorpe will be the first new security prison we have built in this country for fifty years. The Prison Commissioners have this point very much in


mind. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) mentioned Wormwood Scrubs. A major programme in that connection is to be carried out there in the next two years.
I want now to deal with detention centres, because a number of hon. Members asked about them. As has been pointed out, these were set up under the Bill which was piloted through the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). There are now three detention centres opened, two junior centres for boys from 14 to 17 years of age and one senior centre for boys from 17 to 21. A second senior centre will be opening shortly. A third junior and also a third senior centre are planned, and are expected to be ready within the next five years. There are to be two more after that, when the whole country will be covered.
I know that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) would prefer the effort to be devoted to remand centres. On the other hand, if we now stopped work on these detention centres it would probably mean that we would get neither. as I pointed out to him the other night. The importance of covering the country with detention centres is that we shall then be able to envisage no young person under 21 being sent to prison, which is surely what we desire to see.
I have been asked how far they have been successful. It is far too early to say. Research is already being carried out into their success by Dr. Grünhut, of Oxford, whose work on comparative penal reform is probably known to hon. Members of this Committee. His interim report is contained in the last annual Report of the Prison Commissioners. The figures are by no means discouraging. I will not give the figures, because time is short. It will be some little time before that line of research is completed, and even then it will be a little early to express an opinion. As we are at present advised, on the lines of Dr. Grünhut's research, it is far too early to say that the detention centres have not served their purpose. On the contrary, what we have so far learned about them is fairly encouraging.
I now want to deal with the question of work in prisons. First, there is the

amount of mailbag work. Nobody would pretend that that is the sort of work which one would give prisoners if other work was available. On the contrary, it would obviously be desirable that mailbags made in prison should be sewn by machine instead of by hand. On the other hand, it is far better that prisoners should be working on that than that they should not be working at all.
Unfortunately, orders from Service Departments have shown signs of falling off as the result of the economies which have been taking place. There have been repercussions in the Prison Service. We have thought it more important to spread out the work, undesirable as it is, rather than have even shorter hours of work than at the moment as the result of lack of work, instead of the lack of staff from which we have been suffering so far.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) asked whether the officers in the workrooms were there to keep order or for training. The answer is that all workshops have instructors, and they are usually not prison officers. Those people are present as well as the officer who is there to keep order.
The hon. Member for Deptford and also my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) asked about co-ordination between the Remploy, blind and prison organisations. There has already been co-ordination between those organisations, and meetings have been held. The problem of prison work is a serious one which I can assure the Committee that the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners have very much in mind. As my right hon. Friend said, I have already met the employers. The Prison Commissioners had already been in touch with the trade unions, and I hope to meet them, too. However, one must realise that there are legitimate difficulties in the way of the employment of prison labour.
The falling off in Service orders for work inside prisons makes it still more important that we should have outside work, and it is to that that the main objection has come. Therefore, I welcome most sincerely the offers of good will made during the debate, and I will call on hon. Members who have offered to help in these matters, if there are difficulties which I think can be overcome in that way.
There is one very encouraging experiment. I would emphasise that it is only an experiment. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) rightly reminded us that we should not jump to conclusions on one piece of work. Nevertheless, the employment outside prison of men in preventive detention at Bristol has shown very encouraging results. Speaking from memory, I believe that, in 1955, of 19 such prisoners discharged only two subsequently had come before the courts. By last year, of 37 discharged only three had come before the courts again. One should not jump to conclusions, because they are selected prisoners, but that is very encouraging indeed.
I have been asked certain questions about psychiatric treatment. We have the Wolfenden Committee, which has the problem of homosexuality under review, and the Royal Commission on Mental Health, on which until recently I have been sitting with the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, will be making recommendations which must have a bearing on the treatment of psychiatric cases in the prison service. We have great hopes of the work which can be done at the Grendon Underwood prison when it is built. I have not time to go into that matter now, but the 1954 Report shows how the Prison Commissioners envisage that centre will work when we have it in hand. I was also asked about the segregation of homosexual prisoners. Great care is, of course, taken about the segregation of prisoners with homosexual tendencies, to avoid contamination of other prisoners.
Finally, the hon. Member for Rossendale asked me about after-care and the recommendations of the Maxwell Committee. The main recommendations have largely been implemented. The first was that the aid societies should be invited to deepen and develop their interest in the field of voluntary after-care to meet the

individual needs of selected prisoners and to assist their general rehabilitation as citizens, and correspondingly to reduce the emphasis which they have hitherto placed upon immediate material aid on discharge. That has been done in the sense that the aid societies are, or ought to be, fully conscious of the new emphasis on their work.
So far as the welfare officers in prisons are concerned, this has been accepted in principle, and four of the new prison welfare officers are in post at Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool and Winchester. This is a pilot scheme, and we have, therefore, thought it right, rather than to put individual welfare officers in other prisons, to put a second officer at Birmingham and Liverpool in the next financial year. We shall then see whether the work justifies two officers or even more. The report which I have seen of the work of the welfare officer at Bristol suggests that there is ample work at a big prison for more than one prison welfare officer.
As I feared, I have not been able to deal with all the points made in the debate, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will excuse me. However, in considering those points, my right hon. Friend, the Prison Commissioners and I will be genuinely animated by the two leading principles which have for some time now enlightened our prison administration and led to a progressive lessening of its rigours. The first is that a man goes to prison as a punishment and not for a punishment, It will, therefore, be our aim——

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading Read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I wish to raise a point on Clause 43, which I propose briefly to explain. I hope that the Minister will make clear his intentions concerning this Clause. Perhaps I ought to say that I am speaking on behalf of the Urban District Councils' Association, of which I have the honour to be President. The Association feels some uneasiness about the operation of this Clause.
As I understand, the effect of the Clause will be to abrogate the statutory safety provisions which now operate at level crossings over railways and, at the application of the British Transport Commission, will enable the present statutory arrangements to be done away with and replaced by Orders made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. Many of the present statutory provisions are enshrined in Acts of Parliament of some antiquity.
If hon. Members will examine the Clause, they will notice a reference to the Highway (Railway Crossings) Act, 1839, and to the Act of 1854. Because of technical progress it is quite obvious that it would be possible to do away with some of the statutory provisions and to introduce more modern methods of control—possibly remote control, lights, automatic control, and so on—much in the same way as we got rid of the man who used to walk in front of vehicles on the highway with a red flag.
Local authorities are uneasy because, as the Clause is drafted, there seems to be no limitation of its scope and location. I should be glad if the Minister would say how he intends to operate these powers when the Transport Commission applies to him for alterations in the safety regulations at level crossings. It would seem that if there are to be easements, such easements, and, perhaps, in some cases, experiments, should take place on roads where traffic is very light and in areas

which are thinly populated, at least to start with. I consider, also, that it would be advisable—I hope the Minister will agree—that my right hon. Friend should consult the local authorities concerned, and possibly the police as well, before making Orders doing away with safety devices which have been in operation for many years.
That is the point which I wished to
make and I do not propose to elaborate it. I think that it is understandable that local authorities should feel uneasy, although they do not wish to be in any way obstructive; but it would be helpful if, before we give a Second Reading to this Bill, the Minister would tell us what are his intentions.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston). I regard the powers included in Clause 43 as sweeping, and I feel that, as a House, we should be very careful about what powers we grant to outside monopolies in a matter of this kind. Sometimes powers are given to corporations and other bodies which have a vital effect on the citizens of this country.
Clause 43 is entitled:
Power for Minister to authorise special safety arrangements at public level crossings.
I think it might well be altered to read:
Power to relax safety arrangements at level crossings.
As was said by the hon. Member for Westbury, the provisions of this Clause will result in the sweeping away or abrogation or modification of powers contained in the Highway (Railway Crossings) Act, 1839, Section 47 of the Railway Clauses Act of 1845 and Section 6 of the Railway Clauses Act of 1863; and, what seems to me far more significant,
any other provisions of the same or similar effect …in any enactment relating to any level crossing at which a public carriage road is crossed on the level by any railway of the Commission …
Goodness knows how many Acts are involved there. The House will require from the Minister an explanation of what powers the Transport Commission is seeking.
The provisions of this Clause would be effected by an Order of the Minister.
I gather that that would be a Departmental Order and not a statutory Order, so that the House would have little time to consider it or even knowledge of what was actually happening. The Clause requires 28 days' notice to be given to the authority concerned. That seems a very short time. I know that 28 days is the minimum time, but those of us familiar with local government know that a matter of this kind would be considered by a sub-committee which would pass its recommendations to the full council; so that 28 days is a ludicrous period to suggest.
Section 40 of the British Transport Commission Act, 1954, empowers the Minister to consent to the removal of gates
at any level-crossing at which a public carriage road is crossed on the level by any railway of the Commission …
and the Minister can authorise a lifting barrier to be substituted for gates at such level crossings. These powers have been in existence now for more than two years, in fact, two-and-a-half years, and I wonder whether the Minister can say how many experiments of this kind have been tried. I understand that the answer is, none. If that be so, it seems rather extraordinary to give wide powers of this kind to the Commission and to the Minister which they have not seen fit to exercise. One wonders whether it is because they are reluctant to use those powers. If they are, it seems to me that the powers should be withdrawn.
Clause 43 authorises more traffic signs as well as barriers and lights. For years the House has been exercised about traffic signs and other hindrances to traffic on the highway, but we must remember that at these level crossings trains have full precedence over pedestrians and road traffic. The penalty for an accidental mistake, or a deliberate action by a pedestrian or the driver of a vehicle, can be a severe one. It may well be death or very serious injury.
I wonder what will happen to disabled people—the blind, the deaf, and even the colourblind. All those are subjected to special dangers, especially at crossings, where the speed of an approaching train may be 60 or even 80 miles an hour, and which may have a bend on one side or the other. If the Clause is agreed to

shall we be giving civil servants power to sanction Departmental Orders without the specific consent of the Minister? I wonder whether these Orders receive the personal attention of the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, or whether they are authorised by a civil servant in the Ministry.
So far, we have been dealing with the general powers conveyed by Clause 43, but I now want to draw attention to Clause 49, which affects a footbridge in my constituency. There are special objections to the removal of this footbridge. If Clause 43 is passed I gather that it will never be necessary for the Commission to promote a Bill seeking powers to remove a footbridge in such circumstances. The footbridge is at Camborne, and was built as a result of the Great Western Railway (No. 1) Act, 1894, which provided that a bridge for foot passengers should be so built.
The name of this bridge is Stray Park Crossing. The name is a fascinating one for all those who come from Cornwall, because it is the name of a mine, and many of the hundreds, if not thousands, of mines in Cornwall have very attractive names. At one time the Stray Park mine, now abandoned, was close to this crossing. The bridge is the subject of a petition by the Camborne-Redruth Urban District Council, and
it will presumably be considered by the Committee after the Bill receives a Second Reading. I do not propose to oppose the Second Reading, but I wanted to use this opportunity to draw attention to certain effects of these two Clauses.
The crossing is used by 573 vehicles
and 1,250 pedestrians a day. The footbridge was obviously provided out of necessity over sixty years ago. In postwar years two new housing estates have been built on one side of the bridge, and the people from those housing estates and the surrounding area cross the footbridge to go to the large engineering works situated fairly close by; to the schools; to the shopping centre in Camborne, and so on. It is, therefore, a vital link between these estates and important parts of Camborne, and Camborne is part of the Camborne-Redruth urban district, which has a population of nearly 36,000. There are three other small footbridges in this locality.
The railway runs from east to west and it is the main line from Paddington to Penzance. The real reason why the Commission has promoted a Bill containing these two Clauses is to save the cost of maintaining the footbridges. We ought to consider not the comparatively small cost to the Commission, but the safety and convenience of the people in the neighbourhood. If these powers are granted they will apply to footbridges of the same kind all over the country. I suggest that the interests of our citizens are paramount and that a monopoly, even of the State, must not be permitted to ride roughshod over the needs of those citizens.
Under the provisions of the British Transport Commission Act, 1954, and Clause 43 of this Bill, bureaucrats of the Ministry and of the Commission will be able to override the needs of the public and, indeed, the wishes of the properly elected local authorities. The powers contained in Clause 43 are excessive. They are a "try-on" by the Commission. Parliament ought not to surrender its powers lightly. I hope that the Minister will weigh very carefully all the pros and cons of the matter and will find it possible to advise the Committee to reject both Clauses.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. E. Partridge: I had put down on the Order Paper a Motion that I had intended to move, which would have instructed the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred to delete Clause 17, which deals with docks and inland waterways. When reading the Bill I was very surprised to find that it contained such a Clause. Last year a Bill was introduced by the British Transport Commission asking for powers to close many sections of our inland waterways. After a good deal of opposition by some alert Members of the House, the Minister thought it advisable to appoint a committee. The Bowes Committee was duly appointed, and is at present examining the whole question of our inland waterways. It was, therefore, all the more surprising to find a Clause which sought to abandon more of these waterways.
Looking at the Bill, one cannot be at all sure what the Commission is up to.
The powers it seeks are contained in Clause 17, but their details, such as they are, are to be found in the Fourth Schedule. The first item in that Schedule does not make it clear whether the canals to be abandoned are one or 20 miles long. It is only after taking a good deal of trouble that one can find out exactly what is involved.
After having received certain information, I thought it wise to withdraw the Motion from the Order Paper. I did it for one main reason, namely, that of the five items mentioned in the Fourth Schedule, four refer to only very small lengths of canal and those, in the main, are at the ends of small spurs of the canals. According to my information, three of them are necessary so that rebuilding work may be carried out in factories.
One would not want merely by reason of a quarrel with the Commission to hold up what would otherwise be very desirable work. It is, therefore, because I believe that these works are necessary, and because I understand that the Commission has agreed with the Minister that the funds which accrue as a result of the disposal of
these unused spurs will be put into a separate account, that I have withdrawn my Motion from the Order Paper. I hope that the Minister, when he intervenes in the debate, will confirm that the proceeds of the sale will go into a separate account and be easily identifiable in the future.
I must say, however, that I found a good deal more difficulty in wanting to withdraw my Motion because of the reasons underlying the abandonment of the Ashby Canal. A good deal of expense will have to be incurred in the near future and some of it, I understand, will have to be borne by the National Coal Board by reason of its causing subsidence under the canal. Therefore, the poor taxpayer will "get it" both ways. If we say that the canal is to be maintained, the Coal Board has to fork out and the taxpayer suffers in the end. So, having given this very careful thought, and in the hope that the Transport Commission will not bring forward anything like this again, I did not think that it was right to press the point any further.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I do not propose to keep the House for more than a few minutes, because the point that I am really concerned about is one that affects my own constituency. Before I come to it, I should like to say that I am very glad that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) has withdrawn his Motion.
The hon. Member referred to the previous Bill of the British Transport Commission. I happen to know something about that Bill and to the best of my recollection—I do not argue the point—I cannot recall that the Bill provided for the closing of any canal. It certainly imposed upon the Commission an obligation to maintain the canals for which it was and still is responsible up to a certain standard of working efficiency which the Commission readily accepted. The only point in dispute was the definition as to what the obligation should be in law.
I may be wrong, but I cannot recall that in that Bill any provision was made for the closing of any section of our canals. The hon. Member will, of course, appreciate that whatever views he may have about the closing of the canal—and I do not wholly disagree with him—the concomitant of such a proposition is that obviously there will be a reduction in working costs for the Transport Commission, which would be passed on not only to the National Coal Board but also to the consumers and to British Railways to their advantage.

Sir R. Grimston: I think that the hon. Gentleman's recollection of the previous Bill was a little at fault. There was a proposal to close the Kennet and Avon Canal and the arrangement which was put eventually into the Bill was a result of the negotiations which went on before the Bill was passed in its present form.

Mr. Moyle: I do not wish to argue the point. I was only speaking of what was contained in the Bill and not of the antecedence of the Bill. I was referring to the Bill after the British Transport Commission, quite rightly, had consulted all the dissenting authorities with which they had to contend.
May I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), knowing that he is on our side, and that

he would be a champion for the retention of our inland waterways, that I do not disagree with the plea that he has made in the past for the rentention of our inland waterways, but there are certain facts which the House ought to know.
First, if hon. Members will look at the Fourth Schedule to the Bill they will see that it is proposed by the Transport Commission to close part of the Oldbury Old Canal. That canal has no commercial value at all; indeed, for commercial and industrial purposes it has been out of commission for a very long time, has no social value and cannot be regarded in any way as an amenity.
My constituency, particularly Oldbury, is as jealous for the retention of its waterways as was Sir Alan Herbert himself, because the industrial history of my constituency has been built very largely around its canal. But the simple fact here is that the proposal to close this canal is supported
by my local authority. I have visited the spot and examined the whole stretch of the canal. I have sought advice upon the matter and I can say that it is the desire of the local authority that this part of the Bill, referred to in the Fourth Schedule, shall be implemented during the course of the consideration of the Bill.
I go further. There is a firm which engages in heavy engineering, by the name of Edwin Danks, Oldbury, Limited, which has a national and, indeed, an international reputation, and which has stated that if this provision is retained when the Bill becomes law it is its intention to undertake to fill in the canal and to use it as an additional site for an extension of its own factory. What is more, the firm made the point, which I particularly stress, that any public footpath that may be lost in the process of closing this canal will be provided for by an alternative public footpath. I have received those assurances and I therefore have not the slightest hesitation in supporting this provision, in the Fourth Schedule, in so far as it affects my constituency.
I want to emphasise that there is no commercial transport value at all in this part of the canal and that it offers no amenity for the benefit of the community. In fact, as far as I can ascertain, it is the general desire that this part of the canal


shall be closed. Having regard to the undertakings given quite voluntarily by this firm, I think that in the circumstances this is a very happy proposition. At least, I think so—and in spite of the general views expressed by the hon. Member for Battersea, South, who has already entered the lists, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields who, if I anticipate him correctly, will enter the lists later, and in spite of their desire to retain our inland waterways, I hope that the House will agree with me that in this case this is a happy proposition.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) spoke in favour of retaining a number of foot bridges in his constituency. I do not know his constituency and I should not like to imperil any of his constituents, but on the general point I feel that we are inclined to hamper the railways by insisting that so many of these not inexpensive foot bridges and crossings should be maintained when there is no particular reason for it. On the Continent of Europe people manage to cross railway lines between trains for their shopping and their daily business.

Mr. Hayman: May I point out that this crossing and others near it are in the centre of an industrial town which is the biggest in Cornwall?

Mr. Vane: I said that I did not know the hon. Member's constituency and had no wish to expose his constituents to needless or unreasonable peril, but, taking the general point, I think we are too inclined to insist in these days that the railways continue to spend money on certain works and fulfilling certain duties which no longer had very much purpose.
It always seemed to me that after the British Transport Commission was set up it would have to come to the House from time to time for additional powers, but I never expected that we should have a Bill of this scope introduced into Parliament annually—and a long Bill, affecting many people and many interests. Usually, because a proposal contained in one or two Clauses has created so much local opposition, we find on the Order Paper Motions suggesting that instructions

should be given to the Committee to leave out one Clause or another. Hence, our discussions have generally been limited to those Motions and we have not had much opportunity of going a little wider. Today, we have that opportunity and it is surely the duty of the House, when such an opportunity arises, to go somewhat wider, because there are important principles involved.
The Transport Commission is the largest single industrial organisation in this country and in spite of its powers has very special difficulties. We ought not to criticise too freely its difficulties, because the position is not wholly of its own making. Nevertheless, we are entitled to see whether the Commission has done all it can to improve that position, and I think we should be reluctant to concede these many proposals unless we are satisfied that the Commission has done everything possible.
In this country we cannot afford to have railways other than of the best, but I sometimes wonder whether we shall make our railways as good as they should be as long as they fail to attract their full share of young men of the highest intelligence and administrative and commercial ability. I do not think that they are attracting their full share today. It is greatly to the credit of the railways that they operate as well as they do. That fact shows that there are more people than perhaps we suppose who think beyond the question of hard cash—"hard cash or …", which is one of the slogans of this week. This may not continue for very much longer.
The railways are often criticised for their administrative shortcomings. Some of these criticisms are justified and some are not. We criticise them for dirty trains but this is a criticism not of the railways but of ourselves, and we shall very soon have the strongest claim to be considered the dirtiest people in Europe.
At the same time, I think that a greater effort should be made to attract a larger proportion of able young men who will one day fill the highest appointments in the railways. When we in this House think of pay and prospects we generally consider the big battalions, but for one minute only I want the House to consider the few. I do not want to see the nationalised industries setting an example in paying what might be called absurd salaries,


but I do not think that there is any future in offering so little in the way of prospects. Many of the best young men consider their prospects in the railways and then pass by and go elsewhere.
May I give just one example of what I mean? About fifty or sixty years ago men at the general manager level earned about £3,000 a year. In those days taxation was not as high as it is today. The same sort of responsibility today is rewarded by about £4,000 a year. Taxation is much higher and there are probably fewer perquisites. The young man in the railways who can look forward one day to filling one of those positions is probably not far off the mark if he thinks that after a life in some other industry he might easily earn up to twice that amount.
The House would be doing a good turn to the nation's transport if it encouraged the railways to prune some of their older and less live wood and to set out to recruit a bigger share of the top grade of the young men of the country, who in the course of time, and not such a long course of time, will work their way up. It might well be an economy in the end and there might be fewer shortcomings to criticise when these Bills are introduced into the House year after year.
I do not think that the House ought to look so favourably on another Bill of this kind unless and until we have been given an assurance about the quality of those who are filling the biggest jobs in the railways today and those who are being trained to fill those jobs when their turn comes.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) will, I hope, forgive me if I do not follow him into the details of his argument. I am more particularly concerned with Clause 17 of the Bill. I should like, however, to associate myself with the compliments which he paid to the excellent work done by the British Transport Commission under considerable difficulties these days.
Clause 17 seeks to close to navigation a number of canals which are mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. I think most of us here sympathise with the views of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) and all those other right

hon. and hon. Members who are concerned that British inland waterways should not be closed without good reason, and I believe that the Inland Waterways Association is doing some excellent work in this connection. It is, however, unfortunate that a good cause is spoiled by not examining individual cases carefully, and I feel that to some extent that has been happening this evening.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South said he was reluctant to agree to withdrawing his Motion particularly with regard to the Ashby Canal. I do not know whether he is as familiar with the Ashby Canal as I am familiar with the canals of Battersea, South, but if he had gone to the trouble of investigating the matter more carefully I think he would have come to somewhat different views. The part of the Ashby Canal involved is 4¾ miles long. I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea, South that it is unfortunate that these distances are not mentioned in the Schedule. Had they been mentioned it would have been very helpful to those considering the Bill. That 4¾ miles of the canal has not been navigable for several years, largely because three miles of a contiguous part was closed by the London, Midland and Scottish Railways Canals Bill, 1944.
In addition, this canal has become unnavigable, because there is a large amount of subsidence under its bottom. The result is that there are great variations in depth, and it has been necessary artificially to lower its level in places to avoid the flooding of fields nearby. It has also been necessary—and this is rather important—to build a dam across it at a place called Ilott's Wharf. A canal with a dam across it is very effectively closed for navigation in any case, so here we are dealing with a canal already virtually closed, and are asked merely to give legal sanction to it.

Mr. Partridge: I did note all the considerations to which the hon. Member is now referring, but my reluctance arose from the fact that one closure leads to another, and this one may lead to another.

Mr. Cronin: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention. It makes the situation clearer to know what is in his mind. I do not think that we can accept the premise that one closing necessarily leads to another.

Mr. Partridge: It always has.

Mr. Cronin: Closures may have followed each other in chronological order, but I do not think that it necessarily follows that they have led to one another. I am glad that the hon. Member has shown how he feels about this, but I should like him to consider some other points, when he deals with canals in the future. I am sure that we shall hear from him again on canals, beause it is a subject obviously near to his heart, but I hope that on future occasions he will consider individual cases a little more carefully.
The Ashby Canal has several humpback bridges, which are dangerous because the arch is very much higher than would normally be the case with bridges of that length. They are dangerous to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and a source of considerable annoyance. Buses cannot pass over them. They were probably very good in the days of horse-drawn transport, but a village dependent on these bridges has to go without a bus service because of them. For instance, there is a village called Oakthorpe, where all the unfortunate inhabitants have to walk a considerable distance along an exposed road because no bus can cross the two bridges leading to the village.
I hope that the hon. Member for Battersea, South, can understand such a situation. Although canals are such desirable rural amenities they cause great difficulty when, for instance, an elderly lady has to trudge through the snow or rain in winter, perhaps with a laden shopping basket, for the best part of a mile, to keep open a stretch of canal which is not used. That is happening in the case of many of our canals.
Another unfortunate thing is that the Ashby Canal smells. In the middle of the last century, when the Thames suffered from this particular complaint——

Mr. Ernest Davies: It does today.

Mr. Cronin: It was much more serious then. In those days, hon. Members were most vociferous about the smells from the river, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will probably recollect that sometimes the very Sessions themselves had to be regulated so as to avoid the

strongest-smelling period. My unfortunate riparian constituents, dwelling on the banks of this canal, have no way of expressing their extreme annoyance at this olfactory disturbance every summer and that, I think, applies to many canals. There is no escaping the fact that canals do tend to smell, and that is something which the Inland Waterways Association should bear very much in mind when making these rather wholesale condemnations of individual closures.
It is important that the rights of fishermen should be respected. I do not think that very many fish are caught in the Ashby Canal. Its waters are not ideally suitable for the growing of edible fish—or even those which are caught only for sport—so I do not think that fishing rights will be seriously disturbed. Fishing rights must be considered in these cases, however.
Most important of all, when dealing with local matters, we in this House have to take considerable cognisance of the views of local authorities. This is not always done. In this case, I have had the most urgent representations from the Leicester County Council, from the Ashby-de-la-Zouche Rural District Council and from many parish councils, including the Oakthorpe Parish Council. All have expressed very strong views about the annoyance and the lack of amenity caused by the canal. I hope that the hon. Member for Battersea, South, will forgive me if I tend to drive this point home. We very much respect his views—an hon. Member who champions canals is always respected here—but we do beg him to look carefully in future into individual cases.
Turning to the other canals which are mentioned in the Fourth Schedule, I understand that, for all practical purposes, they are dead-ends. None of them carries any shipping. There is no navigation in any of them and, in all cases, the local authorities and the adjoining owners have pressed to have them closed. I understand that in the case of Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Walsall there are now excellent financial opportunities of disposing of the canal sites—opportunities which may not occur again. I therefore think that the case for Clause 17 is really overwhelming, and for that reason I congratulate the hon. Member


for Battersea, South for his perspicacity and reasonableness in withdrawing his Motion.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on the subject of Clause 17, and of saying just a few words about it. The difficulty here lies, to some extent, in a lack of realisation of the part of the British Transport Commission as to what is, in fact, the best and easiest way in which to get its Private Bill business through this House. It knows, as we all do, that there are many hon. Members on both sides who are deeply interested in our canals, and are anxious to see them play the valuable part which they believe them capable of playing in the future.
This Bill was produced in the ordinary way, and at the appropriate time last November, but the first information that anyone on this side—and, though I cannot speak for hon. Members opposite, I shrewdly expect that the same applies to them—had of what was in mind was that there, in this Bill, was Clause 17, which purported to make certain closures of canals. On principle, many hon. Members are inclined to look very closely before they can possibly agree to further closures, especially after the debate last year when it was proposed to close the Kennet and Avon Canal. This House then made it clear in no uncertain manner that until a later date, when the future of the canals should he decided, it would not tolerate any such closure.
It must, therefore, have been obvious to the Commission that its proposal would be bound to meet with some opposition. In any case, it would have been wise and intelligent first to have consulted those on both sides who are interested in these matters. After all, this is not Government business; this is not the business in which the usual channels operate. This is Private Bill business and it is, technically at any rate, quite within the prerogative of any hon. Member to vote in any way he thinks fit. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport can say what he thinks we should do, but he does not use those means by which he fills the Lobbies to his own advantage at other times, so we are quite free to do what we would like to do.
Of course, this must be well known to the Transport Commission, and it should act accordingly. If it had done this and had explained to people exactly why it wanted to make these closures, one might have understood, at any rate in most of the cases, that they were perfectly reasonable demands.
The principle of closure is something about which we feel particularly anxious. We do not want any further closures, if possible, until we know what is going to be the overall policy of the Government following the Report of the Bowes Committee which we hope will be available some time before the end of this year. A lot of bad feeling could have been avoided if the Commission had adopted that line of introduction instead of merely leaving it for us to find out at our leisure.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Gentleman has made an important suggestion and I am trying to follow him. Does he take the view that the Commission is under an obligation to consult informal groups or individual Members when it thinks something is in its Bill which might cause controversy? The Bill is placed before the House and it can be debated here. There is the usual procedure. If, on every one of the matters in this Bill which might arouse opposition, the Commission has to consult Members, it seems to me that the procedure will be prolonged.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I can see the validity of what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we have to be practical men. If one wants to get anything done, it is a very sound principle in life to "roll the pitch" and find out beforehand whether one is going to whip up any opposition.
I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that there is no clear obligation in law or in any other way upon the Transport Commission to act in that way, but I think that when the Commission has been in existence long enough and has learned some of the niceties of Parliamentary procedure—and I use the word "procedure" in its widest and not its narrowest sense—the Commission will find that it will greatly assist the speeding up of the work if at an early stage it takes people into its confidence in this Private Bill legislation.
The hon. Member for Loughborough spoke about the Ashby Canal, about which he knows a great deal. There may well be very good reasons why this canal should be closed, but I do not agree that the reason for closing it should be to enable bridges to be put over it to facilitate the passage of omnibuses but which, at the same time, would hinder any navigation which might be thought to be necessary in the future. If that principle were to be accepted in general, it must be remembered that there are many other canals in the country, as the hon. Gentleman said, with regard to which arguments like that could be advanced for the erection of bridges which would interfere with navigation. Those canals might have a much stronger case than the Ashby Canal for being left as they are pending further development in the future.
The whole question of the closure of stretches of canal involves the possibility that if a certain length is closed it is likely that it will lead to a further closure. If the hon. Gentleman asks me to give examples here and now, I cannot do it but I certainly could give examples to him.

Mr. Ede: There is the Stroud Water.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Yes, that is an example of a canal part of which was dosed to begin with and a lot of which was closed later on. There are other examples, too. There is no doubt that this closing of lengths of canal leads to further closures, and this is often planned with that end in view. We must watch that possibility very carefully.

Mr. Cronin: I think that the hon. Gentleman should elaborate this point further. It is a very important point of principle. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that if closure were allowed of part of the canal it must lead to further closures? Why does he think that many of these closures are intended for the purpose of future closures?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: The people who have been anxious to "kill" certain lengths of canal have felt that it would not be possible to do it all at once, so they have done a certain amount in the knowledge that as opportunity presented itself in the future they would close a

bit more. That is what has activated the mind of the authority which has had control of any canal which it was proposed to close.
I believe that I am allowed to quote something which has been said in another place this Session, so long as it is not part of a debate. I understand that today the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, was informed by the Government——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Does the hon. Gentleman intend to quote a Ministerial statement?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand—and the Chairman of Ways and Means informed me earlier this evening—that I should be in order in referring to a Question asked in another place, but not to a debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member intends to refer to a Ministerial statement in answer to a Question, it will be in order.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: This was a statement in answer to a Question which was asked today by Lord Ammon. The Question related to the amount of the increase of traffic on the waterways of this country due to the Suez crisis. The information which was given was of a most interesting character, that the overall increase in traffic was no less than 9 per cent. A 7 per cent. increase in the traffic on the waterways of England, if maintained for one year, would wipe out the whole of the deficit. Therefore, if this situation lasts another year, we are out of the "red" in the canals. It just shows what can be done if there is sufficient effort and interest.
No doubt, if I were to continue along that line, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you would rule me out of order, because it is not strictly part of the Bill which we are discussing. I will, therefore, conclude by saying that I hope that in the future these difficult situations will be avoided, as they can be with a little understanding on both sides.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I am interested in this Bill because there happen to be seven level crossings in my constituency which it is proposed to close down. I am not opposed to doing away with these level crossings so long as


necessary precautions are taken to warn road traffic. That matter has been mentioned by several speakers this evening, and I would emphasise the point because it is important that safety precautions should be taken.
On many of these level crossings there is a crossing house which obscures the view on the road, and unless some precautions are taken to warn road traffic of an incoming train there will certainly be accidents.
I want to emphasise a point which has been made previously in this debate. I think that before the British Transport Commission brings in a Bill of this sort to close either crossings or docks, or whatever it may be, notice should be given to the local authority, so that if the local authority has any objections or wishes to point out any dangers involved, the authority could inform the Member of Parliament representing that area to the effect that it had an objection to that particular closure.
In this case, I had no knowledge from any of the local authorities with regard to the closure of these crossings, but I am quite sure that if they had had notice of what
was proposed to be done, they would have written to me asking me to call attention to certain dangers that might arise. Therefore, I think it is right that before the British Transport Commission takes any of these steps, though it cannot of course advise individual Members, it should inform the local authority so that it may take up the matter with the Members of Parliament concerned, and they might be prepared to call attention to the matter in this House.
It so happens that I was interested in branch railways, and so on, with the result that I happened to look through this Bill; otherwise, if I had not been interested in the matter, the closure of these level crossings might have gone through without any comment from me. I do not know what my hon. Friend will say in reply, but we did debate this matter on the Transport Bill which I introduced over twelve months ago, and we called attention to the fact that railway crossings on certain lengths of railway that are not used to a large extent were out of date. We suggested that traffic lights should be provided to be
operated by the oncoming train sufficiently far in advance of the crossing and operated again in order to give the "all clear" as

soon as the train had passed the level crossing. I think that that can be done quite easily.
What I want to call attention to in particular is the experiment which the British Transport Commission is conducting with fly-weight diesels and railcars, and I hope that the result of these experiments will be to show that they can be successfully and economically operated on some of these lines which are at present either closed, partly closed or are under threat of closure. I should be glad if my hon. Friend has any information to give to the House on the result of these experiments, and whether they might give some hope to my own particular area, in which we have a large length of railway which is either closed or used only by an occasional goods train.
In considering the abolition of level crossings, it should be borne in mind that it may not be advisable to do away with them entirely if diesel cars or single-unit trains can be operated to give an adequate frequency of service, although I think that level crossings are actually a little bit out of date. I know that two experiments are being conducted at present, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell me whether there are any more. I am particularly interested, because I think it is time it was decided—whether these experiments are successful or not—to do away with some of the railways which are closed and which are a liability to the British Transport Commission in having to maintain fences, bridges and embankments and keep them clear of weeds, and so on.
There is one length of railway in my own constituency which was closed three or four years ago, and which must be a very great expense to the Commission in keeping that line permanently closed, if there is no hope that it will ever be brought back into commission. If it is decided that it is not wanted, consideration should be given to turning it into a tarmac road, or, alternatively, pulling up the rails and scrapping them. It would not be a question of selling the land to the neighbouring owners because the cost of reinstating it would probably be more than it is worth, but certain steps could be taken to cut down the expense involved in maintenance. I hope, therefore, that the British Transport Commission, when it has decided whether the


diesel experiment is successful or not, will then take steps to cut out some of its liabilities.
On Clause 17, I agree with what has been said by several speakers in the debate that the closing of a small portion of a canal can quite easily lead to the closing of a larger section. I think the Transport Commission would have been right if it had stated, in connection with the Ashby portion of the canal which it is proposing to close, that there was another length of four and three quarter miles which it seems to me may be threatened with closure at some later date, and I think that one of my hon. Friends would not have withdrawn his objection to the closing of a small portion if he had known that there was a very much larger section that might also be threatened.
I am afraid that I am rather suspicious. I have a feeling that if the Transport Commission wants to close canals, that is the way it will do it, just as when it wants to close branch railways it first of all stops the passenger traffic because it is not economic, and at some later date has only two or three trains a day operating. For that reason, I must say that I am more than suspicious, just as I am suspicious of the figures that are put forward by the Commission when it wants to close either a line or a canal. Some fantastic figures have been given, and I think the House ought not to accept them quite as easily as it has been inclined to do. I have in mind the figures that were given in connection with the closing of the Isle of Wight railways, which were later proved to be completely wrong.
Therefore, I think that in the case of these Bills which come before the House Members should very carefully look through them to see what they really mean, because in a voluminous document like this it is quite easy for something to be slipped through which might have a great effect on a particular area. I think the local authority of that area should be advised and that hon. Members concerned should also be notified of what is proposed, so that they can tackle these problems as they arise.
In conclusion, with regard to the canals, although the point has been made before in this House, I still maintain that

it would be a good plan if all the canals were placed under control of a completely different authority. I think that there is a tendency for the Transport Commission to want to drive all the business off the canals and on to the railways, and I myself would rather see the canals in competition with the railways. I am a great believer in competition, and, if we want good service, then we must have competition. I do not believe in bureaucracy, and, for that reason, I thought it would be a good plan if the canals were handed over to another authority in order to see what sort of a job it could make of them.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Horace E. Holmes: For a few moments, I want to refer to Clause 17 (2, a), which reads:
all rights of navigation along on or over the waterways and all rights of user by barges or other boats of the waterways shall cease and he extinguished;
Under paragraph (b) in the same subsection, similarly, it is provided that there shall cease to be any obligation—
(whether statutory or otherwise) to keep the waterways open for navigation or to maintain the same"—
and so on. The point that is worrying me and my particular neighbourhood, as well as other areas in South Yorkshire and the West Riding, is that we have a wide network of canals in which certain sections have been closed and are no longer used, and which have become not only stagnant but dangerous. Local authorities, medical officers of health, the health inspectors and all kinds of people of that character have done their best to draw atention to these dangerous, filthy and unhygienic miles of unused waterways, and they are very anxious that something shall be done about them, and done quickly.
I fully appreciate that a Select Committee is sitting at present and that sooner or later a report will be brought forward, but, in the meantime, these miles of partly empty waterways are dangerous, and without any prospect whatever of being used again. It is known that there is no prospect of their being used again. The banking is becoming dangerous, and the water is filthy. The amount of refuse there is surprising, and it is surprising where it comes from. These places are becoming filled with refuse, tins and rubbish of all sorts, breeding disease.
It is a matter of grave concern to local authorities in the area. I hope that sooner or later somebody's attention will be drawn to the fact that there are these stagnant, dangerous, unhealthy, disease-breeding places, and that they will be dealt with in some way or other. In the particular area I have in mind, there are nearby collieries which are spoiling the countryside with dirt stacks. It might be possible to use pit refuse to fill up these unused waterways, and thereby obviate the necessity to build stacks. I earnestly hope that something will be done to improve the condition of these places.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I hope that the hon. Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Holmes) will forgive me if I do not follow him in a consideration of Clause 17. I want to address myself to Part II of the Bill, Clauses 7 and 8.
I am not speaking in order to oppose the Bill, but I object to the principle which is contained in Clause 8, and Clause 8 flows from Clause 7. Hon. Members will have noted that Clause 7 deals with the Kingsferry Bridge, a bridge which crosses the River Swale and links the Isle of Sheppey to the mainland. This bridge originally was controlled under the Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway Acts of 1856 and 1861. Part of those Acts laid down that in no circumstances whatever were the railways to hinder the passage of vessels up and down the navigable part of the river for a period over 25 minutes. No doubt, the Minister is fully aware that the river is now navigated, as it was then, to a very large extent by sea-going vessels. The old bridge, which is what Clause 7 deals with, had a navigational opening of 58 ft. 6 ins., and the maximum length of vessel which normally went through this navigational opening was round about 135 ft. with a draught of 20 ft. There was, quite naturally, a limitation on the beam of the vessel by reason of the size of the opening, that limitation being 44 ft. But this beam of 44 ft. was the limitation laid down by the pilot of the vessel.
By Clause 8, the British Transport Commission seeks power to build a new bridge. That new bridge will undoubtedly be a much better bridge than the old bridge. It is to be a bridge of

the vertical lifting type and will, in fact, give an operational opening of 90 ft. as opposed to the operational opening in the old bridge of 58 ft. 6 in. That is all to the good.
The principle, to which I object most strongly, will not in practice be upset in this particular Clause relating to this bridge because the speed and set of the current in this river is such that a vessel which had a larger beam or greater draught than the operational opening of the new bridge permitted would not be the type of vessel to navigate that river. But the reason I am speaking tonight is this. The principle which has been injected into the Bill, which I find utterly repugnant to our normal legislation, and about which I feel sure I shall receive some sympathy both from the House and the Minister, is to be found in Clause 8 of the Bill. Hon. Members will see that the Clause arbitrarily sets down the nature of the vessels which can operate and pass through the bridge. Reference is made in the Clause to the dimensions of vessels passing through Kingsferry Bridge. Subsection (1) provides:
It shall not be lawful for any vessel exceeding fifty-five feet in extreme breadth to pass through or under the new bridge.
Subsection (2) provides:
The owner or master of any vessel which passes through or under the new bridge in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be liable for every such offence on the first occasion to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds and on any subsequent occasion to a penalty, not exceeding one hundred pounds.
Subsection (3) provides:
An application may be made to the Minister at any time by any person or body representative of persons appearing to the Minister to have a substantial interest for an alteration of the dimensions referred to in subsection (1) …
What do those provisions do? As I read them, they seek to take away authority from the master of a vessel. It is really quite absurd to imagine that at any time masters of vessels hazard their own ships. That is not the way that a master in command of his ship works. It has always been the rule, from nearly time immemorial, that the captain of a ship is in charge of his ship and responsibility for the navigation of the ship rests upon him; moreover, there is no one who may tell him whether or not he should or should not pass through a particular channel. The principle which


lies behind these two Clauses is a principle which the House should not accept. I believe that the master should at all times have complete discretion in the navigation of his own vessel.
Another difficulty would arise if this Clause were allowed in Committee to remain worded as it is at the moment. According to subsection (3), persons may make representations to the Minister on the subject of vessels of different size passing through or under the bridge. We must also remember that the matter of shape may enter into this. In this fast-changing world, the design of vessels does not remain static. Far be it from me or, I suggest, from any hon. Member, to pretend to be able to state at this moment what will be the design of ships in many years to come. If, as the Bill allows, representations can be made to the Minister, the burden of decision is placed not upon the master of a vessel, but upon the Minister. I cannot believe that any Minister of Transport would desire or wish to have that burden of decision with regard to navigation resting upon him.
I sincerely trust that in his reply tonight the Minister will at least say that this matter will be given consideration and thought before the Committee stage of the Bill. I feel certain that in that event we may well find the Government suggesting a different wording or the omission of the principle which underlies Clause 8.

Mr. Ede: I have tried to follow what the hon. Member was saying and I am interested in the Clause. What dimension other than the beam comes into consideration under Clause 8? I know that the rubric at the side alludes to "dimensions," but in the Clause itself the word is in the singular and the dimension is a beam not exceeding 55 ft. There is nothing about draught or length. Apparently, the only thing controlled by Clause 8 is the beam of the vessel.

Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly pointed to the fact that Clause 8, which I read, states in subsection (1) that
It shall not be lawful for any vessel exceeding fifty-five feet in extreme breadth to pass through or under the new bridge.
The point I was trying to make was that in the case of the new bridge which is to be built, any vessel of a greater size

of beam would not, in fact, operate because of the current and the speed of the current.

Mr. Ede: I know the river well. I have navigated it.

Mr. Marshall: Subsection (1) seeks to embody in the Bill the principle that it shall not be lawful for any vessel exceeding a certain measurement to navigate the river through the operational opening of the bridge. The moment that the Clause does that, it
takes away the full discretion of a master in command of his vessel. I do not believe that to be wise, neither do I believe that it is wise to have in the Clause a provision whereby people can submit for the discretion of the Minister a case as to whether a different type or size of vessel should be allowed. Anything that concerns the navigation of a vessel should be left completely in the hands of the master.

Mr. Ede: In subsection (3), the words are "the dimension." That is the only thing that can be put up to the Minister for his discretion.

Mr. Marshall: That is true, but concerning both the dimension and the question of the beam discretion is being taken away from the master in command of a vessel. It is my belief that masters do not hazard their vessels and that a master is at all times the most competent person to judge whether he should go through a bridge. There is, therefore, no necessity or requirement to put this into legislation, as it is the natural overriding responsibility of the master of a vessel.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish to revert to the speech of the hon. Member for Falmouth nad Camborne (Mr. Hayman), who is no longer in his place but who made one or two points to which a reply should be given. I shall not answer at length the hon. Member's reference to Clause 49, about the footbridge at Camborne. I know the bridge, but not its history. It is true that it is in a built-up area, but from its position and its name I suspect that it was a bridge built for the convenience of tin mines.
Miners in all parts of the country are much the same in that they are bold men. Wherever a mining district has a level


crossing near a mine, it will be found that a footbridge has been constructed because the men coming off work tend not to bother about the crossing gate if it is closed but climb through it notwithstanding that a train may be approaching. For that reason, extra precautions were taken near mines in mining districts. When a mine ceases to operate, they are no longer necessary.
The hon. Member made a number of observations concerning Clause 43. He seemed to think that it was a rather bureaucratic Clause. I was surprised at that form of criticism coming from the other side of the House. The answer to the hon. Member is to be found in the dates of the Acts which are referred to in subsection (1). It refers to the Highway (Railway Crossings) Act, 1839, and the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Railways Clauses Act, 1863. All those Acts were passed in the early days of the railways at the height of the Industrial Revolution.
In dealing with early railway legislation, one should remember the psychology of the people at the time. In the course of about ten years, the whole face of the country had altered. Whereas in the early 1830s or even in the mid-1830s the country was accustomed to the turnpike roads for the ordinary form of transport, in ten or fifteen years everything had altered, the railways had a complete monopoly and the psychological shock to the people was quite considerable. For that reason, the early railways legislation was fairly severe. It was a reflection of the mood of the time.
I have on a previous occasion in this House referred to a striking passage which Dickens put in "Dombey and Son", in which he compared a railway engine to the wings of the angel of death. That was the way in which people in those days regarded the railways. They looked upon them as something terrible and dangerous against which the most elaborate precautions had to be taken.
The result is that our early railway legislation contains most elaborate precautions which other countries that developed their railways later did not find it necessary to include. Even in the case of small crossings on roads which were little used, there were provisions necessitating a crossing keeper, double gates and all sorts of things. No other country

would think of insisting upon anything of the kind.
Anywhere on the Continent, anywhere, I believe, in America, too, one can find crossings which are not protected in this elaborate way. It is a little inconsistent of hon. Members to complain, as they so often do, that the British Transport Commission is closing branch lines or not running its operations for profit and at the same time to insist on British Railways maintaining obsolete safety precautions or excessive safety precautions in many places where they are now quite unnecessary.
Some of the fears of the hon. Member are a little unreasonable because many safeguards are provided for in the Clause. An Order made under the Clause can be made only after the Commission has approached the Minister and after the highway authority has been notified, and also the local authority within whose district the level crossing is situated, if the local authority is not the highway authority. The local authority, which knows all about local conditions, will be notified and will know whether there is any provision which in its opinion is unsatisfactory and, no doubt, it will make representations about that.
Subsection (2) refers to barriers, lights, traffic signs and automatic and other devices and appliances which an Order may require to be provided. I take it that this subsection relates to various conditions which are applied in many continental countries. I remember being very interested, many years ago, in a system in Switzerland. It was a system whereby as a train approached a crossing it automatically rang a bell and a gate unfolded, descending as a road barrier. Thus, a barrier and a warning were at once provided.

Mr. Hayman: The hon. Gentleman has had great experience of railways. Can he tell the House why the private railway companies did not try out this idea?

Mr. Wilson: Because they were prevented from doing so by this House. This House, in its early railway legislation, imposed very severe conditions upon the railways. It imposed them in the Private Bills promoted when the railways were built. The restrictions were very severe indeed. Most of our railways were built


in the 'forties of the last century, or consist of amalgamations of railways built about that time. Stringent restrictions were imposed in those early, original Acts upon the activities of the railway companies.

Mr. Hayman: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the few years immediately before the railways were nationalised?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, certainly I can. I do not know whether this is strictly in order on this Bill, but the intention of the square deal—"agitation" I was going to say, but that is not the right word—campaign was to get rid of many of the old obstructions which were cluttering the railways and preventing them from developing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue this matter any further on this Bill.

Mr. Wilson: I wondered whether I should be in order in answering the hon. Gentleman's question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I did apologise in advance.
Clause 43 is overdue, and it will be a great help to the Commission in appropriate cases in getting rid of some of the excessive safety precautions at crossings. I think we can leave it to the Ministry and to the local authorities to insist on seeing, when orders are made, that there is no undue danger to the public. I do not think that any complaint can be made about the Clause.

8.34 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: I wish to refer to Clause 51. Under paragraph (b) a section of railway in East Sussex, that between Lewes and East Grinstead, is to be closed. It will not be the first time that that section of railway will have been closed. It was closed
some years ago by the British Transport Commission, some of us believe illegally. It was then reopened. It is still open, but under the Bill it is the Commission's intention to close it again.
I do not want to go into the rights or wrongs of the Commission's wish to close it, but some hon. Members, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), and other East Sussex Members feel that the local people, the local authorities and the

users, were not given a fair hearing when the whole matter was submitted to the South Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee. We therefore made representations to the Chairman and certain members of the Transport Commission.
An assurance has now been given by the Chairman that the Commission, if it is granted the powers which it seeks in Clause 51 to close the East Grinstead and Lewes line, will not exercise those powers before submitting the matter again to the South Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee. The Chairman goes on to say that he is advised that, under Section 6 (7) of the Transport Act, 1947, the Consultative Committee is bound to consider the Commision's submission.
On that assurance, my hon. Friends and I wish to withdraw our objection to the Bill, but I felt that it was desirable that the assurance should be put on the record of the proceedings of the House.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On some occasions when British Transport Commission Private Bills have been before us we have had a general debate on the affairs of that public corporation. This Bill is so narrow in scope that that does not arise today, but I would refer to the fact that a long time has elapsed since we have had a general debate on the Transport Commission's affairs. Last year we had no debate on its Report and Accounts, which I think was very regrettable.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) referred to the closing of the Lewes and East Grinstead branch line. I do not want to go into the substance of the matter, but it seems to me that the Commission has treated his representations with very great consideration and generosity in resubmitting the case to the South Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee. When the matter came before it on an earlier occasion much evidence was produced. I remember the case. The decision that the Commission
was justified in seeking the closure of the line was upheld by the Committee. I believe that the case was then considered by
the Central Consultative Committee, which again upheld the decision of the South Eastern Area Committee. In view of the very heavy losses


which are being made on this line and the very small traffic that it carries, I would find it very difficult to believe that any other decision could be reached, but that remains to be seen.
I rose to refer very briefly to the closing of the canals, which has formed the main part of this debate. I can quite sympathise with those hon. Members who in the past have opposed the general principle of closing canals when they were not used to a great extent and were un-remunerative. That does not arise on this occasion. If there had been any major closure, such as the one which came before us exactly a year ago, of the Kennet and Avon Canal, hon. Members would have risen to question the wisdom of the Commission in making those proposals while the Bowes Committee is sitting.
In the case of the five closures which are included in the Bill, in no case is the small section of the canal involved being used for navigable purposes. In no case, I understand, are they amenities in the sense of being used for fishing or pleasure craft, and in some of the cases the land now occupied by the unused section of the canal can be turned to a useful purpose. The two hon. Friends of mine who have spoken in connection with the Ashby Canal and the Oldbury Old Canal have given fully justifiable reasons why approval should be given to the closure of those two small sections. I was therefore very much surprised when I found that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) put down his original Motion for an Instruction to be given to the Committee which may consider this Bill to delete Clause 17 because, as I say, in every case there has appeared to me to be reasonable justification for the closure of the canals. Further, in no case had a petition been lodged in connection with the Bill against the closures, and in every case the closure of these small sections was supported by the local authorities, which is a very different position from the situation we had before us last year in connection with the Kennet and Avon Canal.
There was one reference made by the hon. Member for Battersea, South which gave me some concern. The hon. Member referred to the fact that some undertakings had been given to him—or he hoped that the Minister would give these

undertakings—concerning the funds which would be realised by the Commission from the disposal of these small sections of their canal undertaking. He said that these funds should be put into a separate account and be identifiable. What his object was, I do not know; no doubt the Minister will be able to tell us if these undertakings have been given.
If the object is that, should there be any change in the operation of the canals, should there be any transfer of the canals from the Commission to some other organisation, this money should then pass to them, it seems to me a most extraordinary suggestion. In that case it would be reasonable to expect that any expenditure which the Commission may now make on the upkeep of derelict canals that would later be transferred to the other organisation, should equally be taken into account and the Commission should be recompensed for that expenditure. In other words, I would like the Minister to make it clear, if any undertakings have been given, what undertakings they are and exactly what they mean. I would like him to make it clear that the Commission is being treated fairly in this connection, and that if any liabilities are being placed upon it as regards the disposals, the House will be fully informed as to what they are; similarly, if there are liabilities being placed upon the Commission, that it shall be fully compensated for them in due course.
Though one can sympathise with the concern of the House over the future closures, I hope that the House, having heard tonight from those hon. Members in whose constituencies these sections of canal are situated the reason for the closure, which no doubt will be confirmed by the Minister, will feel differently from when they put their original Motion on the Order Paper.
The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) suggested that the Commission should have consulted hon. Members in connection with the closures. I intervened to ask him exactly what he meant by that. It seemed to me a most extraordinary suggestion. There are 630 Members of Parliament. If the Commission brings a Private Bill before the House, as it is doing now, the mere fact that the Bill will be debated gives hon. Members every opportunity to table Motions or Petitions if they wish to do so. It seems


to me that the procedure of the House enables all hon. Members to express their views and take any other action they desire. I feel that if the Commission consults, where necessary, other authorities—such as local authorities—and bodies concerned, it is fulfilling its duty. I do not think it has any obligation whatever to consult Members of Parliament about details in its Private Bills.
In considering all these matters, it is necessary to keep in mind what we expect of the Commission. We have imposed upon it the obligation to pay its way. It is not doing that at present, and the Government are advancing money to meet its deficit. Nevertheless, the obligation to pay its way remains, and, therefore, we have to consider all the Commissions proposals from the point of view of whether they are directed to assisting it to pay its way, whether they are commercial propositions. As I read them, the very large number of proposals in
the Bill are made to relieve the Commission of liabilities with which it is no longer necessary to burden it, such as in regard to level crossings and canal closures. We expect the Commission to operate commercially, and we must not prevent it from doing so for merely local reasons.

Mr. Hayman: Would my hon. Friend agree that whatever economies the Commission might effect should not be at the expense of the safety and convenience of the people in the neighbourhood?

Mr. Davies: I certainly agree with that, but I have sufficient faith in the Commission to believe that it would never take action which it considered increased the risk to the public which it serves. I do not think there is any danger of that. The Commission certainly has obligations to act in the public interest and to operate a public service. I feel sure that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.48 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The debate has ranged widely, as one might expect on a Bill of such massive proportions as this one, which offers so many interesting topics for discussion. I feel that I might usefully deal with three main

topics which have been raised—canals, level crossings, and, a matter of very great interest in the South of England, the line in Sussex.
First, however, I would say a word or two to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) about the important point he raised in connection with Clause 8. He suggested that the Clause would interfere with the traditional authority of a master in sailing his ship, and that, therefore, it was wrong in principle. I am sure that the Commission will take note of his comment and no doubt the matter will be considered in the Select Committee, for it is appropriate to consideration in Committee. I would add that the point has given the Ministry some anxiety, so I sympathise with my hon. Friend's anxiety. In fairness to the Commission, I ought also to add that there have been a number of occasions when vessels have collided with this bridge and thereby cut off the Isle of Sheppey from the mainland, and I suppose that this Clause is a product of their concern over this. This point, also, can be dealt with in Committee and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter.
Turning to the considerable discussion we have had on Clause 17 and the Fourth Schedule, I should say to my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) and Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) that we appreciate their deep interest and concern in the future of the canals. We understand their wish to have certain assurances. May I briefly run through the items in Clause 17 and the Fourth Schedule? May I say here that I was glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) regarding the Oldbury Canal and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) regarding the Ashby Canal, about which I know some hon. Members have experienced difficulties.
There are five lengths of canal in question. They are all terminal lengths, and, as has been rightly said, they all ceased to be navigable a good many years ago. There are no sound local reasons for keeping them open; in fact, there are sound local reasons for their closure. So far as I know, there are no coarse fishing interests in any of them. There is the Ashby Canal of 4½ miles from the northern terminal; the Birmingham


Canal, that is, the Oldbury Old Canal mentioned by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen; the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, of 510 yards to the Liverpool terminal; the Swansea Canal of 1½ miles, that is, the remainder of the canal within the borough, and the Walsall Canal of 154 yards to the terminal of the Monway Branch.
The Ashby Canal has for long been the cause of serious difficulty. Mining subsidence has disturbed the levels, with the result that parts are very shallow. In other parts the banks have subsided and neighbouring fields have been flooded, causing a great deal of trouble to the local farmers. There is the point to which the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen rightly drew attention, that some of the villages are cut off from the local bus service because of the hump-back bridges.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich that, of course, hump-back bridges could be rebuilt to carry any kind of traffic. But it is an enormously expensive thing to do that while providing sufficient head-room to permit the navigation which is required until the canal is closed. So that it is fair to say that until the canals are officially closed the bridges cannot be dealt with in a sensible way. Pressure to that end from local people and local farmers is undoubtedly justified.
The Swansea Canal is not dissimilar. It has been unfit for navigation for many years and the authorities there wish to flatten out some of the hump-back bridges so that they can complete major road works on the A.48 London-Fish-guard road. The other three closures, the Oldbury Canal at Birmingham, the Leeds and Liverpool Canal and the Walsall Canal are all proposed in connection with local industry. They are all quite short lengths. The industries concerned have asked to purchase these sites, and close off the canals, and bear the cost of doing that as well as paying good money to buy them. There is really a very strong local argument in each case.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend feels that while the Bowes Committee is sitting to consider the whole future of our inland waterways the effect of its report should not be prejudged by any action

of this kind. I recognise the sincerity of that view, as I am sure that the Commission does, and it is following it as far as it reasonably should. I say "reasonably should" because it is quite obvious that in these five cases great benefits will accrue to the people in all the localities concerned from proceeding with the five closures in advance of the Bowes Committee reporting.
To meet the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South sees, in connection with the disposal of some of the assets of the inland waterways before the Bowes Committee reports, the Chairman of the Commission has undertaken to ensure that the receipts from the sale of these three sites to local industrial interests will be recorded in the accounts of the Commission in such a way that they can be identified as capital assets of the inland waterways against the future. It will make quite sure that these assets are preserved as assets of the inland waterways, and that the Bowes Committee report will in no way be prejudged.
As I think the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) was hinting, it is fair to point out that the Commission, without any direct obligation to do so, has engaged upon a number of capital works in connection with some of the inland waterways and has committed itself to the expenditure of no less than £5½ million in modernisation. That is a cogent earnest of its good faith, and that it will do well by the inland waterways. I do not doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich, who has advised the Chairman to "roll the pitch" before bringing in his Bill, will take note that it has been well rolled in this respect.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the hon. Member explain the exact object of putting these moneys to a separate account? I do not see the purpose of it. Is it so that the money can be transferred later, upon the recommendation of the Bowes Committee, if it recommends a new organisation? In that case, would it not be right for the Commission to be paid compensation for any money that it spends from now on in maintaining derelict canals? If it is to be prejudiced in regard to its assets it should equally be recompensed in respect of its liabilities.

Mr. Nugent: Heaven forbid that I should try to define upon what basis such a hypothetical transfer should take place. All I have said is that the Chairman has undertaken to ensure that these transactions shall be so recorded in the accounts of the Commission as to be identifiable.

Mr. Davies: Why?

Mr. Nugent: Because I accept the point that these are assets of the inland waterways. It is a fair point for my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South to make, that they are assets of the inland waterways; that the issue of their future should not be prejudged, even in theory, and that it is, therefore, fair to record that these transactions have taken place. I cannot see that anybody will suffer by it, and it preserves the principle referred to by my hon. Friend.
I turn now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), and his anxiety about the Lewes-East Grinstead line, which can be closed by the Commission under powers given to it by Clause 51 (b). I should like to put the facts on record very briefly. The Commission is asking for this power to remove the doubt which arose following its closure of the line in 1955. In the interim, in response to local action which took place following that closure, the Commission reopened the line in August, 1956, and it is still open.
The Commission has a strong case for closing the line. Before the closure, in 1955, there was an annual loss of £60,000 a year and the Commission has satisfied my right hon. Friend and myself of that. Although it submitted it to the South Eastern Transport Users' Consultative Committee and, indeed, to the Central Consultative Committee, both of whom endorsed what the Commission had done in its proposal to close the line, it is evident that local opinion is not yet fully convinced of the soundness of the Commission's case. Consequently, the Chairman of the Commission has undertaken, as my hon. Friend has said, not to proceed with the matter until it has been again considered by the South Eastern Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

Mr. Baldwin: Would it be possible for the Consultative Committee to hold an inquiry and have this matter thoroughly

thrashed out, with witnesses and evidence as to the costings and losses supposed to be made, because it is one of the few cases dealt with where there is evidence to prove that the figures put forward by the Transport Commission were completely "phoney"? I think it only right, when the Commission makes a decision, that the Consultative Committee, instead of endorsing what the Commission puts forward, should have an inquiry and call evidence as to costs.

Sir C. Taylor: And, also, that the inquiry should be held locally.

Mr. Nugent: I am satisfied that in this case there is nothing "phoney" about the Commission's case. My right hon. Friend and I take the point that public opinion is not convinced and, therefore, my right hon. Friend is asking the Chairman of the Consultative Committee if he will hold an inquiry locally and admit the public to it so that they can be convinced that the Commission's case is sound.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that local authorities and any local organisations have had an opportunity of making their representations to the Consultative Committee? In each case, when the closure of a branch line comes up, reference is made to the Consultative Committee and those who object to the closure have full opportunity of stating their case to the Committee.

Mr. Baldwin: When the Consultative Committee wanted the Transport Commission to produce witnesses in the Isle of Wight so that they could be cross-examined, it refused. Nobody could find out whether the figures were correct.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member for Enfield, East is correct in saying that the Consultative Committee is a very representative body, which includes representatives of local authorities, and is constituted in a way which is intended to carry public confidence. I think that we must be careful not to overload the Committee with too onerous duties or we may find it difficult to find people of the right calibre to serve on it. Different committees function in different ways.
Some make the practice of having the
Press present, others do not. The whole object is that they should satisfy general consumer interests. We fully take that point, and I am quite certain that, if we follow


the inquiry procedure in this case, local public opinion should be satisfied, on the old traditional principle that not only should justice be done but that it should be seen to be done.
I should like to say one word about the level crossings on which we have had a number of speeches, particularly on Clause 43. If Parliament decides to give the Commission these powers it will open the way for very important new developments in level crossing technique. I quite understand the anxieties expressed by some hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) on behalf of the Urban District Councils' Association and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) about the safety angle. I will say a word or two about that in a minute. The object of Clause 43 is to allow dispensation at selected public road level crossings from the statutory safeguards of the legislation of the last century. These very broadly require that there shall be the traditional gates, which we all know, and attendants at these crossings.
Clause 43 also provides safeguards, and this is a point with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Westbury particularly asked me to deal. The Commission must give notice to the local authority concerned, with a minimum of 28 days, before it makes a proposal which comes to my right hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne asked whether 28 days is enough as a minimum. That is a Committee point and undoubtedly it will be fully argued. I should not like to say whether it is enough or not, but if it is not enough the point will be brought out in Committee. I hope it should be enough, but the intention is that this will allow the local authority concerned to make representations to the Minister before he makes an order.

Mr. Hayman: Did the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that 28 days should be enough? If he looked at council work I think he would revise that view.

Mr. Nugent: I have been on local authorities and I agree that it might not always be enough. I said that I was not prepared to say whether it was enough

but that it was a matter which could be argued in Committee. I have no doubt that the right answer will be found.
I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury that in this connection the "local authority" means the highway authority or the local authority if it is not the highway authority. That covers an urban district or rural district council if it is not the highway authority, and it ensures that those authorities are fully consulted. In practice, the proposed crossing would be visited by an inspecting officer of the railways and a representative of our Chief Highways Engineer, with a parallel arrangement in Scotland, and they would always invite the local and the highways authorities to discuss the project on the site with them if they so wished.
I believe that these safeguards will ensure that these innovations are made only at suitable level crossings. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the intention is not to introduce the innovations widely and generally. The intention in the first place is to introduce them experimentally at a few selected places so that we may have the opportunity of seeing how they work in this country. There should be every safeguard to see that they are not introduced in inappropriate cases.

Mr. Hayman: Would the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a public inquiry being held if there is an acute difference of opinion between the local authority and the Transport Commission?

Mr. Nugent: I would sooner that we dealt with such problems as that when they arise. I can give the hon. Member the assurance that it is the wish of my right hon. Friend and myself, and, I am sure, also of the Transport Commission, to advance in this matter with the confidence and co-operation of public opinion. We are making an innovation here and the last thing that either the Commission or we wish to see is something which will startle and upset local opinion.
I want to deal with these innovations in a little more detail, because I believe that they are very important and will be a great help to the Commission as part of its modernisation plan if they turn out satisfactorily. The need for this


power to make this development is twofold. First, it is to relieve the Commission of the increasingly heavy problem of maintaining and manning all existing crossings of public roads, especially at relief periods; not only manning them, but manning them with men of suitable calibre—men who are reliable enough to do this very important job.
The cost is also increasingly heavy—over £1 million a year now on this alone. Here, I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that if these experiments prove successful and it appears safe and practical over the next few years to introduce more of these automatic arrangements at crossings, it will undoubtedly be some help in the problem of keeping branch lines going, because the cost of running them will decrease.
The second need is to get the benefit of modern progress by installing this automatic and remote control apparatus where appropriate. The benefit on traffic delays will be quite substantial. The average traffic delay at a level crossing is three to four minutes; with these devices it is only three-quarters of a minute. Such devices have been very widely used on the Continent in recent years, and in the United States. Members of Parliament may have seen them when they have been in France and elsewhere; I think that there are 700 or 800 of them in France now.
An hon. Member asked whether we ourselves had already used such devices. Of course, we had not the power to do so. The only experimental installation which has been put in, that I know of, has been a lifting barrier in Yorkshire. That is operated from a local signal box, so it is still hand-worked and still involves the problem of a man to operate it.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether that has been installed since the British Transport Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1954?

Mr. Nugent: No, it was installed before then, under a 1947 Act; the 1954 Act would only have given similar powers to install the complete lifting barrier, and would not have given powers to install the automatic operation and remote control which this Bill would do.
Let me say just a word or two on speed. Our existing system has been claimed to be the safest in the world, and I think it is so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) made, I thought, a very valuable intervention when he called attention to the atmosphere in which the legislation governing it was made. Over a hundred years ago, when we were pioneers in the world of railway making, and the whole business of railways was, to say the least, a very startling affair, people, not unnaturally, thought that there should be the most complete safety measures possible.
Other countries built their railways later and, in the light of our experience, found it quite safe to proceed with something far less onerous and expensive. We think that the time has come here to get the benefit of these new arrangements where we can. We believe that though these arrangements do introduce new risks they are, nevertheless, manageable risks, and that we should certainly experiment with the new arrangements in a few selected places to see how they go.
We have had an expert working party on this matter, and it has visited certain countries in Europe in recent months to study their arrangements and how they were working. The working party has completed its report—a very interesting document, I think—and we are doing all we can to hasten its publication so that hon. Members and the public can be as fully informed as possible on this subject; what is proposed and what the implications are. I hope that it may be possible to get the report published in the course of the next month or so, if possible before the Committee stage on Clause 43, so that hon. Members and others may have the benefit of it when they come to consider this very important matter.
We have had some very helpful comments on these topics, which I am sure the Commission will take note of; and I feel that we have now discussed it in sufficient detail for me to ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I regret to hear from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that this proposal with regard to


level crossings is only to be an experiment in selected places. I think that adds point to the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) when he drew attention to the sweeping nature of the powers here.
There are not only the three Acts of Parliament mentioned. Clause 43 (1) states:
… any other provisions to the same or similar effect incorporated with or contained in any enactment …
If this Clause goes through in its present form, we give a complete blank cheque for the British Transport Commission to fill in at will. I hope that in Committee the Ministry will make representations that will enable those sweeping words to be swept away.

Mr. Nugent: I wish to make it quite plain that the introduction will be on an experimental basis in a few selected places, but, if the experiment is successful, naturally a more general installation will follow.

Mr. Ede: If the experiment is not successful, the British Transport Corn-mission will be armed with the powers and can then go on to do what it likes. If ever there was a loosely worded Clause, this is one. Look at subsection (5):
Before applying to the Minister for an order under this section the Commission shall give notice in writing to the highway authority (and also if the local authority within whose district the level crossing is situated is not the highway authority to the local authority) of their intention to do so accompanied by a copy of the draft order which the Commission intend to submit to the Minister and the said highway authority and local authority shall be entitled to make representations to the Minister in respect of the said application within such period not being less than twenty-eight days as may be specified in the notice.
There is not a word in the Clause about what the Minister is to do with the representations when he gets them. I suggest that the Clause needs carefully examining to make quite sure that it does not arm people with powers that may be misused, and that it imposes on the Minister a duty to examine and consider the representations that are made to him. As the Clause is at present worded, it is a blank cheque with no limitations on it and I think it ought to be resisted by the House.
I want to say a few words about some remarks which fell from the lips of my

hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) who objected to what the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) said about consultation between the British Transport Commission and Members of the House. I do not know how many private Bills—not private Members' Bills, but private Bills—my hon. Friend has proposed, but as one who has been responsible for promoting several private Bills for local authorities and for other bodies and having to champion them in the House, I can say that it is the almost inevitable procedure of promoters of private Bills to try to find out which Members are interested, and particularly which Members are likely to be critical and hostile, and to consult them about the procedure on the Bill, because that course, if followed, saves a great deal of expense in the Committee Room.
The British Transport Commission knows very well who are some, at least, of the Members who are interested in the canals. In fact, representatives of the Commission came to see us in two consecutive years. Some of us were even stood a lunch. All this is part of the usual procedure, and it is to be regretted that on this occasion, when the Commission had a rather better case than it had on the previous two years, it did not give us the information that has been given here tonight, for I am quite sure that it would have saved hon. Members themselves some trouble and anxiety, and would at any rate, I am quite certain, have resulted in no Motion appearing on the Order Paper with regard to canals, so that that part of our proceedings tonight need not have taken place at all.
I hope that the British Transport Corn-mission will realise that in dealing with this matter in this way, it is in the position of an ordinary promoter of a private Bill, and that it owes the same duty to hon. Members, who are known to hold strong views on the matters that may be included in its Bills, which every other promoter of a private Bill regards himself as being under an obligation to take upon himself.
I am glad to observe that tonight there has been no assumption on one side of the House that because this is a British Transport Commission Bill, it must be bad, and, on the other side of the House, that because it is a British Transport Commission Bill, it must be good. The


British Transport Commission is a human institution capable of error, though not often in my view committing it, but under the same obligations which every other human institution should take into account when the feelings of those whose interests—not using the word merely in the financial sense—in public affairs may be affected by its transactions. I hope that what was said by the hon. Member for Nantwich and what I have ventured to say myself will be paid some attention if another Bill dealing with canals should be submitted to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £117,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Prison Commissioners and of prisons, Borstal institutions and detention centres in England and Wales.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Simon: I was in the middle of an eloquent peroration when seven o'clock struck, and I had quite inadvertently shut out the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I think she knows that I would not wish to shut her out on any subject, and particularly one on which she speaks with great knowledge and authority. I therefore propose to forgo the rest of my peroration so that we can have the benefit of the hon. Lady's contribution to the debate.

9.24 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary to the Home Office for what he has said and I should like to say that this House is the most unpredictable place that I know. Having sat here from half-past two waiting to speak, and finding out at twenty minutes to seven that I could not speak, and then saying what I had to say and walking out, and finding at five minutes to nine that I might be able to speak, I now find that at about

twenty-five minutes past nine I have about four and a half minutes in which to say what I have to say.
I was very pleased to listen to the Home Secretary's statement about what the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners intend to do in reference to prison staff and prisoners, but there is one item which has been left out of the debate completely, and, in view of the time and the importance of the matter, I intend in these few minutes to concentrate upon it.
I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary, in his comments to and conversations with the Home Secretary, to see whether it is possible to start at once making some alterations in our prisons in order to be able to accommodate the large number of epileptic prisoners who are coming into them. I went into Pentonville Prison not very long ago and found an acute epileptic in an ordinary cell. Some arrangements had been made, of course, to prevent him knocking himself about; but he happened to be a very tall man who, when he threw himself about in an epileptic fit, could not help but hit his head on the brick walls of the cell. Ordinary mattresses from the beds had been stood up, not held up at all but merely stood on their edges around the prison cell. The provision was totally inadequate.
When I was there, I asked what arrangements there were for keeping very violent epileptics under control. I was told that in that prison there was no accommodation at all, only the ordinary prison cell with these mattresses put round when necessary. On making inquiries, I found that very few prisons have any sort of specialised accommodation for epileptics. In October last, I asked some Questions of the Home Secretary and received what I considered to be a very disturbing reply. I was told that the number of epileptics was 192 annually, and on top of that a further 209 persons possibly having epilepsy were in the prisons. With the exception of two prisons, there was no accommodation at all. In two prisons there was either only one cell for such accommodation or between one and seven places.
Anybody who knows anything about epileptics knows that they can get into a terrible state, throwing themselves about


violently, and there ought to be proper provision made. I am one who believes that in very many instances the crimes which epileptics commit are, to some extent, due to the illness from which they suffer. If we have to hold them in prisons, then we ought to have very special facilities to see that they in their illness and the fits from which they suffer do not knock themselves about more than can possibly be avoided. This would not cost a very great deal of money. There is plenty of labour in the prisons. The prisoners themselves can be given the task of making proper accommodation for the holding of epileptic prisoners. Sorbo is easily obtainable in these days. It is easily manageable and readily worked for such purposes as this. If it is possible to do anything at all in prisons in this respect, it would be a step in the right direction.
There were many other things I wanted to speak about, but, of course it is impossible. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary may be able to give us some information about the matter which I have been able to raise. I hope it will be looked into immediately in an effort to see whether something could be done in order to provide the accommodation which is not at present available in any of our prisons.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Simon: It seems likely that I shall be interrupted again, in my second speech in this Committee, but I should like to answer the point which the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has made about the treatment of epileptics. Pentonville, the prison to which she referred, has, in fact, six fitted cells for epileptics. In the case to which she referred, the prisoner was not in one of those cells because he was in the hospital block for observation. There was, therefore, an improvised cell fitted with mattresses. As regards the generality of prisons, all except two have specially equipped cells.
Through our work together on the Royal Commission on Mental Health, I know that the hon. Lady has very much in mind that the epileptic should be treated preferably not by being restrained in the old-fashioned way in what is popularly known as a padded cell, but rather by sedative drugs.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £117,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Prison Commissioners and of prisons, Borstal institutions and detention centres in England and Wales.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amount of the Vote on Account for the Navy Services for the coming financial year, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, and of all outstanding Excess Votes, be granted for the Services defined in that Vote on Account and those Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess:—

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1957–58

VOTE ON ACCOUNT

That a sum, not exceeding £125,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Navy Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958.

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1956–57

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £98,365,931, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates. viz.:—


CLASS I




£


1.
House of Lords
3,872


2.
House of Commons
24,330


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
64,000


5.
Privy Council Office
871


7.
Charity Commission
4,485


8.
Civil Service Commission
7,550


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
17,000


10
Friendly Societies Registry
5,000


11.
Government Actuary
5,300


12.
Government Chemist
17,000

£


14.
The Royal Mint
10


15.
National Debt Office
1,345


16.
National Savings Committee
222,500


17.
Public Record Office
10


19.
Royal Commissions, &amp;c.
30,000


21.
Silver
105,000


23B.
Foreign Compensation (Czechoslovakia)
428,929


24.
Scottish Home Department
10


25.
Scottish Record Office
2,120

CLASS II


1.
Foreign Service
350,000


5.
Commonwealth Relations Office
65,700


6.
Commonwealth Services
10


8.
Colonial Office
77,810


11.
Development and Welfare (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and South African High Commission Territories)
280,000

CLASS III


1.
Home Office
1,214.250


3.
Police, England and Wales
1,224,000


5.
Child Care, England and Wales
463,750


7.
Carlisle State Management District
10


8.
Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c
22,939


9.
County Courts
10


13.
Law Charges
71,600


16.
Police, Scotland
81,700


17.
Prisons, Scotland
93,600


20.
State Management Districts, Scotland
10


21.
Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
24,000


22.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
10


23.
Supreme Court of Judicature, &amp;c, Northern Ireland
751

CLASS IV


1.
Ministry of Education
7,931,000


2.
British Museum
21,333


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
21,500


4.
Imperial War Museum
10


6.
National Gallery
3,600


7.
Tate Gallery
3,118


8.
National Maritime Museum
3,539


9.
National Portrait Gallery
1,000


11.
Grants for Science and the Arts
10


12.
Universities and Colleges &amp;c, Great Britain
1,060,000


13.
Broadcasting
451,500


14.
Public Education, Scotland
1,113,000


17.
National Library, Scotland
1,798

CLASS V


2. Housing, England and Wales
10


4. Ministry of Health
1,240,000


5. National Health Service, England and Wales
24,584,500

£


6.
Medical Research Council
10


7.
Registrar General's Office
19,500


8.
Central Land Board
66,000


9.
War Damage Commission
48,000


10.
Department of Health for Scotland
177,000


11.
National Health Service, Scotland
2,288,200


13.
Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
1,660,000


14.
Registrar General's Office, Scotland
947

CLASS VI


1.
Board of Trade
219,400


2.
Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services)
10


4.
Services in Development Areas
600,000


6.
Export Credits
10


7.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
10


8.
Ministry of Labour and National Service
183,000


9.
Ministry of Supply
8,500,000


11.
Royal Ordnance Factories
2,600,000

CLASS VII


1.
Ministry of Works
200,000


3.
Public Buildings &amp;c., United Kingdom
480,000


4.
Public Buildings Overseas
275,000


8.
Rates on Government Property
1,300,000


9.
Stationery and Printing
920,000


10.
Central Office of Information
12,500

CLASS VIII


1.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
900,000


2.
Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies (Revised Sum)
15,600,000


3.
Agricultural and Food Services
3,793,556


5.
Fishery Grants and Services
879,000


7.
Office of Crown Estate Commissioners
10,779


8.
Agricultural Research Council
66,000


11.
Forestry Commission
319,000


12.
Department of Agriculture for Scotland
544,029


13.
Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
49,950

CLASS IX


1. Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation
1,213,300


3. Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
10


5. Ministry of Power
1,193,120


7. Atomic Energy
3,735,000


8. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
10

CLASS X



£


2. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
308,980


3. War Pensions, &amp;c
10


5. National Assistance Board
1,800,000


6. Pensions, &amp;c. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
362,400

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS


1. Customs and Excise
…
1,059,800


2. Inland Revenue
…
1,900,000


3. Post Office
…
3,736,000




£98,365,931

Question put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,650,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and a grant in aid of certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, &amp;c, of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
Cr. 425,000
*- 75,000


2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
900,000
*- 400,000


4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
400,000
—


4. Educational Services
75,000
—


6. Scientific Services
1,350,000
50,000


7. Royal Naval Reserves
50,000
—

Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote
£
£


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, &amp;c.—




Section I—Personnel
2,600,000
650,000


Section II—Matériel
4,250,000
400,000


Section III—Contract Work
1,950,000
1,700,000


9. Naval Armaments
1,000,000
1,000,000


10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
Cr. 1,350,000
1,250,000


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
—
150,000


12. Admiralty Office
600,000
—


13. Non-Effective Services
Cr. 400,000
25,000


15. Additional Married Quarters
—
250,000


Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1956–57 …£
11,000,000
5,000,000


* Deficit.

Question put and agreed to.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57

. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding


——
Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid



£
£


Vote




9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
10
—


Total, Air (Supplementary) 1956–57 …£
10
—

Question put and agreed to.

>CIVIL (Excesses), 1955–56

That a sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1956.


Schedule


Class and Vote
Excess of Expenditure over Estimate
Appropriations in Aid
Excess Votes



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d
£
s.
d.


Class IV











4. Imperial War Museum
…
…
131
14
10
121
14
10
10
0
0


Class VI











9. Ministry of Supply
…
…
1,136,049
4
9
1,136,039
4
9
10
0
0


Class VII











10. Stationery and Printing
…
…
2,800
7
2
2,790
7
2
10
0
0




Total Civil (Excesses)
…
…
…
£30
0
0

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, the sum of £30 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Powell.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, the sum of £114,128,192 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Powell.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, the sum of £1,677,923,000 be granted cut of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom —[Mr. Powell.]

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COTTON INDUSTRY (LEVY)

9.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No. 3) Order. 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.

Hon. Members: Where is the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Erroll: I am deputising for him tonight. This matter, important though it is, is comparatively a minor one.
As the House will know, the Cotton Board may, with the approval of the Board of Trade, raise from a levy imposed on the cotton industry, a sum rising to a maximum of £450,000. By this Order we are seeking to increase the maximum of the annual levy to a figure of £525,000. This increase is required to enable the Cotton Board to meet additional costs arising from undertaking a sales promotion campaign in this country for United Kingdom manufactured cotton goods.
The Board of Trade has consulted the appropriate organisations in the industry, as we are required to do under the terms of the Act, and the proposal to increase the levy is, I am glad to say, supported by more than 95 per cent. of the industry itself. What I think will be of particular interest to the House is that although the textile trade unions are not required to make levy payments to the Cotton Board they have, nevertheless, decided that they would like to make a voluntary contribution of £10,000 from their own funds towards the cost of this campaign.
The Order also makes a minor amendment relating to the basis for calculating the levy imposed on persons carrying on the activity of converting cotton fabrics. The amendment has been suggested by the trade associations themselves, and, naturally, has their full approval. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the initiative shown by the industry in promoting this campaign to advertise to the spending public the merits of home-produced cotton goods, and accordingly I commend it to the House.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I welcome this Order and I hope it will have the full approval of the House. The Cotton Board is without doubt the most successful of the development councils which have
been established in British industry. I think a large measure of its success has been due to the efforts, wise counsel and guidance of Sir Raymond Streat, who, I am sure we are all sorry to note, has intimated his intention to retire from this important post.
As one who has been associated with Sir Raymond's work for a great number of years in Manchester and London and overseas, and as one who has spent a whole lifetime in this industry, I should like to pay a personal tribute to the excellent work given to the Cotton Board by Sir Raymond Streat. His diplomatic skill, his tact and his rather remarkable knowledge of this industry have been of profound help to the cotton textile industry during the difficult time it has gone through in the last twenty years or so.
This Order, as the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, will permit the Cotton Board to carry on its good work and to extend its activities within the framework of the Cotton Industry Development Council Order of 1948. If the present Government and their Conservative predecessors had taken more notice of the Board, I feel quite sure that this industry of Lancashire would not have had the same social and industrial problems to cope with as it has at the present time.
The Cotton Board's activities are wide in range and important in their function. The Board plays a substantial part in the research activities of the industry and, apart from the Government grant to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, it is the main contributory agent to the maintenance of the Shirley Institute. Anyone who has had experience of the Shirley Institute must agree that it is a really fine research association. It is probably the best industrial cooperative research association in this country, and it is without question the finest cotton textile research association in the world.
The Cotton Board studies export trade problems and it has engaged in overseas sales campaigns with fairly considerable success. It makes a continuing study of the


problems of raw cotton supplies, prices and cover arrangements. It also engages in coping with problems of increasing productivity and it plays an active part in training personnel, drawn both from management and the trade unions, in work study techniques. It has also a statistical department which is probably the best statistical department of any textile industry anywhere.
As has been indicated, the chief purpose of the increased levy is to enable the Cotton Board to undertake a campaign of sales promotion in the United Kingdom. The present need is that the merits of cotton goods should be brought more forcibly to the notice of the public by a well-planned advertising campaign. The cotton trade unions—and this is something almost unique in British industry—have voluntarily contributed £10,000 from their own funds in help to this campaign.
National advertising campaigns have been conducted and are being conducted in a wide range of consumer goods industries, including woollen textiles, linen textiles and textiles made from manmade fibres. This has led to a distortion in the pattern of spending, to the disadvantage of our old-established cotton textile industry and also to the disadvantage of textiles in general.
Figures show that world average consumption per head of the main groups of textiles, that is, cotton, wool and rayon, rose by 16 per cent. between 1938 and 1954, but that consumption per head of these main groups of textiles in the United Kingdom between 1938 and 1954 increased by only 1 per cent. That indicates some distortion of spending capacity. In 1954, only 53 per cent. of these main textiles, cotton wool and rayon, consumed in the United Kingdom was cotton, whereas in North America the percentage represented by cotton was 74 per cent. and in Western Europe 57 per cent. There again is an indication that, in this distortion of the pattern of spending, cotton in the United Kingdom has come off very badly indeed.
The reason why the percentage is so high in the United States of America is not only because it is a great raw cotton producing country, but also because it has engaged in a highly successful sales promotion campaign on the North American continent, and that has added to the

consumption of cotton textiles and has not operated to the disadvantage of rayon, wool and other textiles.
Whilst I welcome unreservedly the Order, I submit that it is not a substitute for Government policy for the industry. Neither is it a panacea for the difficulties under which the industry is labouring as regards duty-free imports of cotton fabrics from Commonwealth countries, a disadvantage which no other industry in Britain has to contend with on anything like the same scale. Neither is it a substitute for a policy of the redistribution of industry. However, I welcome the Order, and hope that it will receive the unanimous approval of the House.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Glover: I do not wish to detain the House at this late hour for more than a moment. I join with the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) in the tribute he paid to Sir Raymond Streat, who has been for seventeen years Chairman of the Cotton Board. I also want to pay from this side of the House the same tribute as the hon. Gentleman paid to the wonderful services given by Sir Raymond Streat to the cotton industry during the past seventeen difficult years. I am sure it will be the wish of everybody in this House that his services will not be lost to the textile industry, or to the economy of this country in general, because his services have been of a very high character and it is largely as a result of his efforts that the relations between management and labour in our great textile cotton industry are so good. I warmly welcome the fact that the trade unions have voluntarily contributed £10,000 towards the success of this campaign.
Finally, I want to put a point to the cotton industry itself. It seems to me that in the promotion of a campaign of this kind in the present day, when we have television, and so on, where our textile industry perhaps falls down is that it does not create sufficiently the cult of the personality. Anyone who watches television realises how rapidly people become names. The success of France as the creator of fashions is largely because the French have a genius for making Christian Dior, for instance, an international name as the creator of new fashions.
I believe that, in connection with this promotion campaign, the Cotton Board would be well advised to consider whether it does not keep its advertising and promotion too much to the textile itself rather than bringing in the creator of that textile and building up a personality cult, which I am certain would appeal to women far more than stating that one fabric is better than another.
If that angle is borne in mind in
the campaign. I am sure it will be a great success. I only hope that at some future date the Cotton Board can extend its activities beyond a campaign intended to increase sales in this country to having a similar levy for increasing sales overseas. If the Lancashire textile industry is to remain at its present size, let alone expand, there is no doubt that the overseas market is just as important as the one in this country. With those few remarks I commend the Order warmly to the House.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: In adding my support to this Order, I should like first to be associated with what has been said about Sir Raymond Streat by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover) and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton). I endorse what has been said. Although I have not had the privilege of knowing him personally on the same basis as the two hon. Members, I know the great value of his contribution to the industry.
It is well known here and, I think, in industry generally that for the last two or three years in Lancashire the cotton textile industry has been facing especial difficulties. We have had intense competition from the Asian producers, including India, and we have seen a change in the pattern of industry which inevitably has brought its own problems. In consequence, as the House knows, we have felt a great waning in confidence within the industry, a matter which has been referred to repeatedly in the House but to which perhaps full recognition has not been given throughout the country.
By this sales promotion campaign I believe that we are seeing one sign, and an important sign, of returning confidence. We are by no means over our troubles, but I believe that it is sig-

nificant, particularly for the reason that this is self-help. This is help which is coming from within the industry. It is not a case of the industry saying to the community as a whole or to the Government, as we have been saying and as I hope we shall continue to say, "We require certain help." This is a specific case in which the industry is saying, "Give us sanction to raise a further £75,000, because we wish to finance a sales promotion campaign."
It is a form of investment and I think that it has an added value for the reason that the trade unions in the industry have said, "We want to be in on this and to make a substantial contribution amounting, in this case, to £10,000." We all want to say nothing which will be misunderstood, but this action at this particular moment puts the spotlight on the cotton industry as one in which there is a relationship between the employers and the trade unions which at least is a good guide to the relationship in other industries. It is something which will be cited to advantage over a wide field, far beyond the confines of the county.
I realise that the detailed ways in which this money is to be spent will be the cause of many disagreements and arguments. I think that is inescapable. Some will say that the results being achieved in advertising are not what they ought to be and that the money should be spent in other ways or that more emphasis should be put on this or on that. I do not think that that will be a serious ground for criticism and I think that over the two-and-a-half years for which the campaign is planned we shall see real advantages and developments. I hope that, together with other developments which are taking place, it will definitely establish that this suggestion that there is a lie-down-and-die feeling in the Lancashire cotton trade is quite false.
I should certainly welcome the Order for that reason alone but, as I have said, there are other real advantages, and it is with sincerity that I welcome this development and wish the campaign real and marked success.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: This is an instance where the Government are wisely following and reinforcing the policy of the Labour Government


towards this industry. There is no one in the House who wishes to oppose the proposal of the Government that we should help the industry in this way to help itself.
As one who has had the pleasure of working with Sir Raymond Streat both in peace-time and in war-time, from the early months of 1941 onwards, I should like to pay my tribute to the work of the Cotton Board and of Sir Raymond himself. As has been said, it is possible that the existence of the Board and the work of Sir Raymond has helped towards better relations in the industry, among other things. I remember how Sir Raymond had what was perhaps for him an unwelcome task in 1941–42 of drastically and rapidly cutting down the labour force and production in the industry. He carried out what was then a vitally important task from the national point of view with fidelity and enthusiasm.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), who has a much greater knowledge of the industry, I hope the Government, while doing this piece of good work in the interests of cotton exports, will not regard this as a substitute for other efforts to give help and guidance to the industry. I think it is possible that in addition to the prob-

lem of the duty-free imports, about which we have heard, the development—we do not yet know what it is to be—of the European Common Market and free trade area, may give rise to further and acute problems for the industry. We should all like to be sure that it will have the sympathy and help of the Government in every practicable way in dealing with those problems; and in particular we hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not think that this action is any substitute for the policy to which my hon. Friend referred of assisting in the introduction of new enterprises and new industries to those parts of Lancashire—which we must always remember, though closely related, is not identical with the cotton industry—and which may have suffered a reduction in employment.
To solve this problem we have to follow a policy of assisting the cotton industry in this and other ways, and, at the same time, seeing that in an area where that may not be effective, steps are taken, with the assistance of the Central Government, to ensure that alternative production and employment is available.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (STEEL SUPPLIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Jahn Rankin: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the shortage of steel supplies for shipbuilding and ship repairing. I wish that the debate might have been held in a happier industrial climate and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House hope, even at this last hour, that there will not be a clash between employers and employees in this great industry.
It is an industry which is, of course, of special concern to me, because so many of my constituents are employed in shipbuilding and engineering, and I have no wish to see suffering where that can be avoided. At the moment the general picture of the industry is one that can be called good. Statistically, we have a total order book which carries 6 million tons of shipping, including 2 million tons of new shipping orders in 1956. That can be described as very satisfactory. Exports of ships and boats in 1955 were worth £53·6 million, and in 1956 they rose to £93·6 million. I think that that is astonishing progress.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]

Mr. Rankin: In 1954, gross profits of £15,637,000 were shown by 24 companies, and in 1955 those 24 companies showed gross profits of £17,752,000. These figures are taken from the Financial Times of 7th January, 1956. In 1955, gross profits of £20,283,000 were shown by 29 companies, and in 1956 the same 29 companies earned gross profits of £22,664,000. Those figures are found in the Financial Times of 12th January of this year.
The Blue Book of National Income and Expenditure for last year, giving the most recent and comprehensive figures, shows that the shipbuilding, engineering and

electrical industries earned net profits of £286 million in 1952; £301 million in 1953; and £335 million in 1954. If we add a total output from United Kingdom shipyards valued at £200 million I think it will be agreed that the financial and productive aspects of the industry are in very good heart. Yet we no longer lead the world. According to the Manchester Guardian of 27th February,
Last year Japan more than doubled her tonnage of the previous year and, for the first time excluding the war years, the output of Britain and Northern Ireland was surpassed by that of another country.
Why? Shipbuilders are unanimous in their answer; they are not getting sufficient steel in proper sequence to hold their place in world competition. Who is the fly in the ointment? The Civil Lord of the Admiralty must be held largely responsible. He, if anyone, is the criminal —and for that he must answer tonight. Only once since 1945 have we reached a total output of 1½ million tons of shipping, and that was in 1954. Yet, our shipyards are equipped to produce 1¾million tons ever year. We have the men and the facilities, but we are not getting the deliveries. During the last twelve years we have lost, in export potential, 3 million tons of ships and boats. In view of our balance of trade difficulties the Admiralty can take no pride in that achievement.
How far is the steel industry itself responsible for our decline? The output of the industry has certainly been raised and is now running at 21 million tons yearly. We pay tribute to the industry for that effort. But the demand for steel in shipbuilding still exceeds the supply. One naturally wonders how far a better organisation of the industry would increase the output of steel plate. It is quite clear to me that more capital is required in the industry. It is not getting that capital because private sources are not supplying it. If the Government are anxious to see that more steel is produced, and if more capital is required to produce it, are the Government prepared to put capital into the industry?
If they are forced to do so, are they going to follow the policy of the Labour Party and realise that if we must supply the money we are bound to take control of the industry in the long run? I do not deny that little things are being done


to help overcome our immediate difficulties. One way of improving supplies is to license the export of steel, and that, I believe, is being done. That may be making a contribution. I should not imagine that it would be very great, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how far the licensing of steel for export has modified the existing shortage.
What about the method of allocating steel? Is this a sort of free-for-all, with each builder being supplied from the nearest steel maker? What is the exact function of the Civil Lord in this business? He will remember that that question was raised at the time when this debate had its origin. We understand that he looks after the interests of the steel users, that the Minister of Transport safeguards the needs of those who require steel for transport purposes, that the Minister of Supply looks after the building requirements, and that nuclear development and oil interests are in the hands of a noble Lord in another place. I wonder whether this is the shape of things to come.
Is the noble Lord, in effect, to be cast in the rôle of controller? Obviously, atomic needs will have first claim on steel, because the Government clearly intend to press ahead with this programme and we have to be sure that they do not do so at the expense of other essential requirements and so leave the Departments concerned to squabble among themselves for the steel that remains. What is the Civil Lord's power and function in allocating steel to shipbuilding? Can he do anything about the organisation of supplies? Can he make sure that the steel not only comes in sufficient quantity to the industry, but at the time when it is needed? Will our steel position enable us to face up to the production of the 65,000 ton oil tankers and does not the Minister regard it as a scandal that no shipyard in Scotland is large enough to build these vessels?
The Minister was in Glasgow at the weekend. He was going over the shipyards of the Clyde and, according to the Glasgow Herald yesterday, he was
impressed by the tremendous amount of work being done to improve facilities for greater production of shipbuilding.
Sir James McNeill, the President of the Shipbuilding Conference, tells us that

there are six shipyards in the United Kingdom which can produce the 65,000-ton tanker. There is not one in the hon. Gentleman's own country, according to the reply that he gave me yesterday, yet he says that he is impressed by the tremendous amount of work being done to improve facilities in Scotland.
This is very important because the Financial Times of yesterday told us that
there is little difference in cost per ton of oil between a 38,000-ton tanker going through the Suez Canal and a 65,000-ton tanker going round the Cape.
Obviously, the 65,000-ton tankers will be a very important product of our shipyards in the near future. If the Clyde is to produce them, shall we have a dry dock big enough to service them?
I understand that the Iron and Steel Board is pressing the steel industry to increase plate production, and that discussions have been held with the Iron and Steel Federation and the principal makers. What definite proposals are before the Board? Can the Minister say anything about that? I hope he realises the tremendous importance of this debate, despite what may happen during the next few days. We hope that the worst will not come, but whether it comes or not the steel position is vital to this country, and I hope that the Civil Lord will tell us that he has the power to ensure that the shipbuilding industry gets steel in sufficient quantities when it needs it and that he is the man who will see that that is one.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: Like the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), I profoundly regret the background against which we are bound to think and talk about this subject this evening. We are at the point where bitternesses may be re-aroused. No one, whatever his feelings, and in whatever part of the House he sits, can help regretting the situation which is building up.
Unlike the hon. Member for Govan, I will speak not as a Scottish Nationalist——

Mr. Rankin: Oh.

Mr. Williams: —Scottish Nationalist in tone—but merely as one who, with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), represents the largest shipbuilding town in the world.

Mr. Rankin: Next to Glasgow.

Mr. Williams: To no one do we bow on that claim. Within our borough boundary we build a greater tonnage than is built on any other river throughout the globe. That is no mean boast, and it is right that it should be put on record on my behalf and on behalf of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.
I wish to put four points to my hon. Friend. First, the shipbuilding industry appears to be suffering from—I do not want to be too harsh in this—either years of neglect or years of lack of result. Throughout the years since the war there has been building up a situation in which shortage of steel or the wrong type of delivery has inevitably jeopardised the flow of production.
Having said that, I am not sure where the blame for it lies, for within the ambit of the Admiralty so little power rests in this matter. Responsibility to this House may lie in the Admiralty, but how much direct control has the Admiralty had or how much should it have had? Following that theme, I welcome the transfer of responsibility for iron and steel matters generally into the purview of the Minister of Power; but I would ask my hon. Friend what this means in terms of direct responsibility for the flow of steel to the shipvards. Does it mean that the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, an invaluable body in this sense, will continue to advise the Admiralty, or will its advice be placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Power, or both Departments?
It seems to me that the moment when the responsibility for iron and steel matters is being transferred to the Ministry of Power may be the moment at which we can look again at this Ministerial responsibility for the delivery of steel to the shipyards. We all know—especially those of us who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), come from the northeast—that the north-east suffered rather severely last year as a whole from the failure of steel supplies. Indeed, in many yards production could have been about 20 per cent. higher. Again, we must see this against the background of what is happening, and I am talking not of industrial matters but of the reconstruction of so many yards, on which many of the profits to which the hon. Gentleman referred are consumed——

Mr. Rankin: I said net profits.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member also mentioned gross profits.
Many of the profits of these firms are used to help to realign the slips so that we can think and talk in terms of the 80,000-ton tanker where before we thought and spoke in terms of the 8,000, the 9,000 and the 10,000 ton tanker. Where yards are realigning and re-equipping themselves, and where amalgamations and developments are going through, it is not enough that the old flow of steel should be maintained. If these large capital investment programmes are to be brought to fruition and made profitable both to the companies and those working in them, there must be an increased flow of steel.
The question behind this is not, if I may say so with respect to the hon. Gentleman who has raised it, one of fair shares. The real question is one of—hideous word though it is—maximising the output of the steel industry. That is the basic problem which we should be investigating.
I hope that the hon. Member for Govan will forgive me if I make what may to him sound like a partisan point. He referred to the absence of private capital. I am not at all sure that he is completely right on that, but I am quite sure that the shadow of the political threat hanging over the steel industry may well affect the thoughts and convictions of those who wish to invest. I do not believe that this is something which can be shrugged off. This threat of renationalisation is, in fact, a reality—much though I think it will not come to pass. Nevertheless, the threat is there, and may do much to reduce the willingness of the investor to put money into the industry.
One final question I should like to ask my hon. Friend. Is he satisfied that the present prices structure—the prices at which steel is sold—is the way in which we shall get the best flow, or is it that, under the present prices structure, the steel is going into some industries less worthy than shipbuilding?

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I wonder if before the Civil Lord replies I could ask a few questions? I appreciate, of course, that he has only a


short time in which to reply. I join my hon. Friend in expressing anxiety about the future of this great industry and, with him, I hope that dislocation will be avoided. It would be a great tragedy to the industry in its present difficulties. The industry does, indeed, face immense difficulties, the main one being intense world competition.
We all appreciate the enormous difficulties that exist in the supply of plate. We have inadequate capacity, and there has been an unpredictable demand for it. The first question I wish to put to the Civil Lord is what progress has been made in increasing our capacity for producing plate? He will remember that assurances have been given about this. Secondly—and I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) would accept this—our experience over the last few years indicates that there seems to be a case for a permanent allocation. Considerable pressure from various sources—atomic energy, railways and shipbuilding—will be made. The shipbuilding industry should know how it is placed, and I should like the Civil Lord to deal with this vexed question of allocations. Thirdly—I raised this at Question Time— will he tell me how successful the licensing system has been in saving more steel for the shipbuilding industry?
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman give us an up-to-date report on the discussions which have been held with the Board of Trade, and will he say whether over the next few years the industry expects greater and assured supplies to overcome this persistent difficulty of supplies out of sequence? This is a fabricating and assembling industry and, if costs are to be competitive, it is essential that the steel is not only supplied, but is supplied in the sequence in which the shipbuilders require it.

10.21 p.m.

The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) for initiating this important discussion on the supply of steel to the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries. Quite apart from the Departmental interest which, as Civil Lord, I have in this matter, I share with the hon. Gentleman a personal interest because our two constituencies face each other across the

Clyde and in each there are considerable shipbuilding and ship-repairing activities.
The problem that I am discussing tonight is not a new one. I sympathise with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said and I understand the reasons—I do not believe they were couched in a Scottish Nationalist manner—which made him raise it on the Adjournment tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) pointed out, the problem is not confined only to the Clyde. The House has been concerned for many months with the question of better supplies of steel, and in view of the interest which has been displayed in so many quarters, I am glad to have the opportunity tonight of putting the matter in a clearer perspective.
In the latter part of 1954 and the beginning of 1955, some ground was lost in the supply of steel. Since then, however, persistent efforts have been made both by the Admiralty and by the industry to improve supplies, and these efforts have met with some success. Deliveries in 1956 were 20 per cent. higher than they were in the trough between the end of 1954 and the beginning of 1955, and were 14 per cent. up on 1955 as a whole. In fact, last year 738,000 tons of plate and heavy sections were delivered to the industry, and that is more than has been delivered in any year since the present system of recording began in 1948. I think I can fairly claim that things are better than they were.

Mr. Rankin: Shall we be able to keep it up?

Mr. Galbraith: I will come to that in a minute. An improvement has taken place, but I would not say that the supply position is even yet entirely satisfactory.
One of the main difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the difficulty about the incorrect sequence of deliveries. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) also referred to this. This difficulty is closely connected with the general problem of adequate supplies, and as the increased supplies reach the yards, as they have been doing particularly towards the end of last year, this difficulty will gradually decrease; and the output of ships this year ought to go up.
However, in order to press on towards its maximum output, the industry could


absorb this year an additional 75,000 to 100,000 tons of steel. In view of the figures of increased supplies which I have already given to the House, I have confidence that this need is going to be met, but it would be unrealistic and unfair of me to suggest that this is going to be the end of all the difficulties. The difficulties in the supply of steel are going to continue until the productive capacity of the steel mills catches up with the growing demand for plate and sections, and it is a demand which affects not only the shipping industry but many other industries which use the same kind of steel.
I have been asked some questions about what I as Civil Lord to the Admiralty can do. The hon. Gentleman imagined that there was some kind of licensing or allocation system in existence. I am sorry that I have got to disappoint him. Nothing like that exists at all. Supplies of steel are allocated
to customers by the producers in accordance with the normal commercial procedure. So far as the Admiralty, the sponsoring Department, is concerned, what happens is that the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries bring to the notice of the Admiralty the overall position of their industries, and the stage reached in the negotiations with the steel industry with the aim of meeting their requirements. Then, when the Admiralty has that information, with the broad view which it already possesses of the forward requirement for ships, the Admiralty is able to represent Departmentally the case for further supplies of steel to the shipyards.
This method of dealing with the matter may not appeal to the hon. Gentleman, who I know hankers after controls and firm allocations, but the success of the method is to be seen in the fact of the increased supplies which came to the shipbuilding industry last year.
The hon. Gentleman asked me something about super-tankers. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House recently that this question of super-tankers was under study. There is a committee sitting on it at the moment, and the outcome of that committee's deliberations has not been published, but the forward plans of the steel industry will obviously have to take account of these requirements. I think that, although we do not know what they

are, they will be fairly substantial. In the meantime, I think the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that, with the supply of steel at the present rate—with no increase at all—the shipyards in this country are expecting to complete a million tons of tankers in each of the next three years.
Of course, I admit that, quite apart from the question of the future of supertankers, the yards are not getting at present everything they need or would like to have in regard to steel supplies. There is nothing unusual in that. Nobody in this world ever gets everything he wants, and the shipbuilding industry is not alone in wanting plate and heavy sections. I admit, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the shipping industry is an exporting industry, with valuable exports of about £90 million a year, and I know that its productive capacity is not fully used, but the same conditions apply, I am informed, to other industries. For example, there are constructional engineers, makers of rolling stock, and electrical constructors. All of these contribute to the export trade and could produce more if they had greater supplies of steel.
On top of these competing demands, there is the new requirement of the atomic energy programme, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred and which I am sure he would not wish to hamper in any way. In fact, the situation is, as indeed the hon. Gentleman himself realised, that there is not enough steel to satisfy all the demands at the moment. We are suffering, if that is the right word —it is not the right word really—we are affected by the success of the Government's policy for the expansion of industry. There is a surge in our economy, demand is buoyant and supply naturally takes time to catch up. That is the background, and it is a background of competing demand against which the increased supplies last year to the shipbuilding industry must be judged.
If the hon. Gentleman will look at the problem in perspective against the demands of industry as a whole, I think he will realise that the amount of steel which
went last year to the shipbuilding industry showed a not unsatisfactory increase in the supply. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that the Admiralty, as the sponsoring Depart-


ment, is in the least complacent. We recognise that the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries are great industries for the future of this country, that they have an important rôle to play in our export trade and that full use is not being made at the moment of their potential capacity.
What we want to do in these circumstances is to get even more steel into the

yards. So far as the capacity of the steel-making industry is concerned, that is what we have already done, and I have given the figures for last year. We will continue to try to do the same in the future to the best of our ability.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'clock.